United States of America v. April M. Wilbur

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
APRIL M. WILBUR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30355
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00191-MJP-3
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
C. MARVIN WILBUR, AKA Marvin
Wilbur, Sr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30356
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00191-MJP-1
FILED
JAN 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRENDA R. WILBUR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30357
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00191-MJP-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOAN C. WILBUR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30363
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00191-MJP-2
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2013
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District Judge. **
** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

The Wilburs appeal the district court’s denial of their joint motion to
withdraw their guilty pleas following this court’s remand for re-sentencing.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The Wilburs’ guilty pleas were conditioned upon their right to raise a due
process challenge on direct appeal. They contend that a prior panel of this Court
failed to consider their challenge.
The district court was correct in finding that a prior panel of this Court had
fully considered and addressed the due process arguments, as evidenced by the
opinion in United States v. Wilbur, 674 F.3d 1160, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012), and the
Wilburs’ petition for rehearing and the denial of that petition. That determination
is sufficient to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the Wilburs’ joint motion to withdraw their guilty pleas after remand.
AFFIRMED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --