United States of America v. Sidney Davis

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIDNEY DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30365
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00211-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sidney Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and
abetting a Lacey Act violation, in violation of 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A) and
3373(d)(1)(B); and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and for making a false declaration in a
FILED
OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30365 2
bankruptcy proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(3). We dismiss.
Davis contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing and
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The government argues that the
appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant
has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981
(9th Cir. 2009).
Under the terms of Davis’s plea agreement, Davis waived the right to appeal
his sentence unless certain conditions were met. None of those conditions were
met here. Nonetheless, Davis argues that the waiver is unenforceable because his
counsel was ineffective. We decline to review Davis’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claims on direct appeal because this is not one of the “unusual cases where
(1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the
issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a
defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” See United States v. Rahman,
642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). We therefore do not preclude the
possibility that Davis might raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in
collateral proceedings, see id. at 1260, as contemplated in his plea agreement.
Davis’s motion to file a supplement to his reply brief is DENIED.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --