United States v. 2020-06-15 | 18-50173 | USA V. MICHAEL RESENDIZ | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL RAMBO RESENDIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50173
D.C. No.
2:17-cr-00606-RGK-1
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 4, 2020
**
Pasadena, California
Before: LIPEZ,
***
RAWLINSON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Michael Rambo Resendiz appeals his conviction and sentence for
being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C.
FILED
JUN 15 2020
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.
* *
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
* * *
The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the
First Circuit, sitting by designation.

§ 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss this
appeal.
1.Resendiz challenges for the first time on appeal the district court’s denial of
his motion to suppress on the grounds that: (1) the physical evidence and his
incriminating statements were fruits of an arrest that lacked probable cause; and (2)
his incriminating statements were procured in violation of his Miranda rights.
However, Resendiz entered into a conditional plea agreement that reserved the
right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion only on the grounds raised in
the district court. See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583–84 (9th Cir.
2004). Consequently, Resendiz waived the right to appeal the denial of his motion
on these additional grounds raised for the first time on appeal. Id.
2.Resendiz argues that his waiver of the right to appeal was not made
knowingly and voluntarily, because of the ineffective assistance of his trial
counsel. We do not generally review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on
direct appeal, unless “(1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit
determination of the issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it
obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States
v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 2011). Neither exception applies in
this case.
2

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
3