United States of America v. Victor Manuel Angulo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VICTOR MANUEL ANGULO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30208
D.C. No.
4:14-cr-06014-EFS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2016
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Victor Angulo appeals his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Angulo claims that the jury verdict form was fatally ambiguous and that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 13 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

1. Angulo waived review of his challenge to the formulation of the jury
verdict form under the invited error doctrine. “If the defendant has both invited the
error, and relinquished a known right, then the error is waived and therefore
unreviewable.” United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 1997) (en
banc). Angulo invited error by concurring in the verdict form and rejecting a
different “break-out” verdict form proposed by the district court judge. See United
States v. Kaplan, 836 F.3d 1199, 1217 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding a defendant may
invite error by “affirmatively approv[ing]” jury instructions and a verdict form).
The parties and the court specifically discussed the verdict form and Angulo
accepted it after the judge asked both parties to address the possibility of ambiguity
in the form. See Perez, 116 F.3d at 845 (concluding waiver exists where “the
defendant considered the controlling law, or omitted element, and, in spite of being
aware of the applicable law, proposed or accepted a flawed instruction”); see also
United States v. Reed, 147 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998) (treating verdict forms
like jury instructions because “[v]erdict forms are, in essence, instructions to the
jury”). Because Angulo’s trial counsel waived review of his challenge to the jury
verdict form, we decline to review this claim.
2. We also decline to review Angulo’s pro se ineffective assistance of counsel
2

-- 2 of 3 --

claim because it is premature on direct appeal. This court considers claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only under two “extraordinary
exceptions,” neither of which applies here. United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d
1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149,
1156 (9th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jacobo
Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)); United States v. Baldwin,
987 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
in federal criminal trials customarily are addressed on collateral attack under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, rather than for the first time on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --