FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 12 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10374
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00765-HG-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAMON BONILLA-GALEAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 8, 2016**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Bonilla-Galeas appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v.
*
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).
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bonilla-Galeas’s counsel has filed a brief stating
that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. We have provided Bonilla-Galeas the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief with respect to the
conviction. We therefore affirm the conviction.
Bonilla-Galeas entered into a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver
with respect to the sentence. The record discloses no arguable issue as to the
validity of that waiver except with respect to raising an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. Because Bonilla-Galeas was advised at the change of plea hearing
that he had a right to challenge the sentence based on ineffective assistance of
counsel, he is not precluded from raising such an issue on appeal. See Rule
11(b)(1)(N); see also United States v. Arellano-Gallegos, 387 F.3d 794, 797 (9th
Cir. 2004). We nevertheless decline to review an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim by Bonilla-Galeas because this is not one of those rare cases where such
review is warranted on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257,
1260 (9th Cir.2011) (holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel
2
claims on direct appeal only in the unusual cases where the record is sufficiently
developed or the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a
defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel). We dismiss the remainder of
Bonilla-Galeas’s appeal of the sentence based on the appeal waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to
reflect that counts 2, 3, and 4 of the indictment are dismissed. See United States v.
Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to
correct the judgment).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED to correct the
judgment.
3