United States v. 2020-06-11 | 19-30217 | USA V. PRADYUMNA SAMAL | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PRADYUMNA KUMAR SAMAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30217

D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00214-JLR-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Pradyumna Kumar Samal appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 87–month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and failure to pay or collect taxes, in

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

JUN 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-30217
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we dismiss.
Samal contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at
sentencing when counsel failed to object to probation’s criminal history
calculation. We agree with the government that Samal’s claim is barred by the
appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement in which Samal gave up his right to
pursue a direct appeal of his sentence. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956,
959 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[O]ne waives the right to argue ineffective assistance of
counsel at sentencing on direct appeal when one waives the right to appeal the
sentence.”). As the language of the appeal waiver contemplates, any claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See
United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003).
DISMISSED.