United States of America v. Rodriguez Madden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RODRIGUEZ MADDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10432
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00149-KJD-CWH-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2015 **
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEABRIGHT, *** District
Judge.
Rodriguez Madden (“Madden”) appeals from the district court’s judgment
FILED
JUN 19 2015
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).
*** The Honorable J. Michael Seabright, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

and challenges the 92-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and dismiss the appeal.
Madden argues that in calculating the Guideline range and sentencing him at
its low end, the district court improperly included a two-level enhancement for
obstruction and excluded a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
Madden waived the right to appeal on this basis. See United States v. Spear, 753
F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir. 2014). Specifically, the plea agreement includes an explicit
waiver of Madden’s “right to appeal any sentence imposed within or below the
applicable Sentencing Guideline range as determined by the Court,” which plainly
means that Madden waives the right to appeal the district court’s determination of
the Guidelines range. Further, Madden “does not contend that his waiver was
unknowing or involuntary.” See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th
Cir. 2011). And even if Madden had raised this argument on appeal, we would
conclude that this waiver was knowing and voluntary -- during his change of plea,
Madden affirmed that he read the plea agreement and reviewed it with his counsel,
that his counsel answered all of his questions, and that he understood that he was
giving up his right to appeal any sentence imposed within or below the applicable
Guideline range as determined by the district court. These procedures are
2

-- 2 of 3 --

sufficient to find a knowing and voluntary waiver. Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --