United States of America v. Cameron Muhlenberg

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CAMERON MUHLENBERG,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10566
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00015-HDM-
WGC-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Cameron Muhlenberg appeals from his guilty plea conviction for four counts
of interfering with commerce by armed robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18
U.S.C. § 1951, and one count of use of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c),
FILED
JUN 27 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 2 --

arising from his participation in the armed robberies of four liquor and
convenience stores. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount
them here. We dismiss the appeal.
Muhlenberg argues that his guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, which
contained an appeal waiver, does not bar this appeal because he is challenging “the
right not to be haled into court at all.” United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 574-
75 (1989) (citation omitted). However, the Supreme Court has limited this
exception to “those cases in which the district court could determine that the
government lacked the power to bring the indictment at the time of accepting the
guilty plea from the face of the indictment or from the record.” United States v.
Cortez, 973 F.2d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis omitted) (citing Broce, 488
U.S. at 569, 576). Muhlenberg’s appeal does not fall into this exception because
his as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act requires further
evidence and cannot be determined from the face of the indictment or from the
record.
Accordingly, we dismiss Muhlenberg’s appeal in light of his guilty plea
pursuant to a plea agreement with an appeal waiver.
We deny Muhlenberg’s motion for leave to submit supplemental briefing.
DISMISSED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --