United States of America v. Dr. Emmanuel Adebayo Ayodele

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DR. EMMANUEL ADEBAYO
AYODELE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50492
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00134-GW-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 7, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Emmanuel Adebayo Ayodele (Ayodele) appeals his conviction of one count
of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. Ayodele asserts that his
FILED
JUN 16 2016
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

guilty plea was involuntary. We review the voluntariness of a guilty plea de novo.
See United States v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2010).
The record reflects that Ayodele’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary,
made with an understanding of the relationship between the law and the facts of his
case. See United States v. Jones, 472 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007). Ayodele
pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. At the change of plea hearings, he
confirmed that he had read and discussed the plea agreement with his counsel prior
to signing the document and that he fully understood the terms and provisions of
the agreement. The district court continued the plea proceedings twice to ensure
that Ayodele had sufficient opportunity to understand the implications of entering a
guilty plea in relation to available alternative courses of action. Ayodele’s attorney
also confirmed that he felt satisfied with Ayodele’s comprehension of the plea
agreement. On these facts, we conclude that Ayodele’s guilty plea was voluntary.
See United States v. Kaczynzski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A plea is
voluntary if it represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative
courses of action open to the defendant.”) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Ayodele acknowledged that he had not been coerced into entering the plea,
he was satisfied with the services of his attorney, and he intended to plead guilty
Page 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

because he knew he committed the crime. As Ayodele understood “the law in
relation to the facts” underlying the charge against him and chose to enter into the
plea agreement with an understanding of available alternative courses of action,
Ayodele’s decision to plead guilty was knowing and voluntary. See Smith v.
Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
Page 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --