United States of America v. Ugo Chijioke, a.k.a. Eugene Akabueze, a.k.a. Ugo Okorie Chijioke, a.k.a. Olde…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UGO CHIJIOKE, a.k.a. Eugene Akabueze,
a.k.a. Ugo Okorie Chijioke, a.k.a. Olde
English, a.k.a. Paulims Ezengo, a.k.a.
Kenneth Mails, a.k.a. Kenneth E. Nails,
a.k.a. Kenneth Everett Nails, a.k.a.
Ugochukwu John Okore,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50125
D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00475-MWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ugo Chijioke appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for conspiracy to commit bank
* 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).
FILED
JAN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-50125
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Chijioke’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for
relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Chijioke has filed a
pro se supplemental brief. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal.
Chijioke waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Our independent review of
the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no
arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Chijioke’s plea. We therefore
affirm as to that issue and dismiss the remainder of the appeal of his conviction.
Chijioke also waived his right to appeal his sentence, including the amount
and terms of any restitution order, provided it did not exceed $1,000,000. We
therefore GRANT the government’s opposed motion to dismiss Chijioke’s
sentencing appeal, with the exception of three supervised release conditions—
standard conditions five, six, and fourteen—which are unconstitutionally vague.
See United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S.
Ct. 133 (2018); see also United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2009)
(an appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge to a supervised release
condition). We remand for the district court to modify these conditions consistent
with our opinion in Evans.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-50125
We decline to address on direct appeal Chijioke’s pro se claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 2011).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED with
instructions.

-- 3 of 3 --