United States of America v. JIBRI OMAR WATKINS, AKA Jabri Knight, AKA Jabri Watkins

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JIBRI OMAR WATKINS, AKA Jabri
Knight, AKA Jabri Watkins,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10491
D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00556-JD-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,***
District Judge.
Jibri Watkins pleaded guilty to two crimes related to a marijuana grow
* 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).
*** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
FILED
JAN 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
operation in Oakland, pursuant to a plea agreement with the United States. Watkins
appeals from his judgment of conviction, arguing that the district court
impermissibly participated in plea bargaining. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The only issue on appeal is whether the district court violated Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) by holding an in camera hearing before Watkins’s
change of plea. The government argues that we should dismiss Watkins’s appeal
because his plea agreement waived his right to appeal. But we have held that a
Rule 11 violation may be appealed even if the defendant has signed an appellate
waiver. United States v. Myers, 804 F.3d 1246, 1254 (9th Cir. 2015). We therefore
evaluate Watkins’s appeal on the merits. We apply plain error review because
Watkins did not object contemporaneously, afterwards, or at sentencing. See id. at
1257.
Under plain error review, Watkins has not demonstrated prejudice. Watkins
brought this appeal to challenge his sentence as a career offender, arguing that
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), requires us to conclude that one of
his predicate offenses is no longer a qualifying offense. But, after all briefing in
this appeal was completed, we decided United States v. Murillo-Alvarado, which
forecloses Watkins’s argument. 876 F.3d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir. 2017) (“In light of
how it is interpreted by California courts, we hold that section 11351—like section

-- 2 of 3 --

3
11352—is divisible as to its controlled substance requirement”). Watkins’s
purpose in appealing is therefore no longer available, and Watkins does not argue
that he was prejudiced in any other way.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --