FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 11 2022
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-15899
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-03591-CRB
3:11-cr-00293-CRB-2
v. Northern District of California,
San Francisco
CARLOS MEJIA-QUINTANILLA, AKA
Wilfredo Oliva-Castro, AKA Sleepy,
ORDER
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: S.R. THOMAS, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Appellee’s petition for panel rehearing (Dkt. 62) is GRANTED. The
memorandum disposition filed September 21, 2021, is withdrawn. It may not be
cited by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit. A new
memorandum disposition is filed simultaneously with the filing of this order. The
parties may file petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc in
response to the new memorandum disposition, as allowed by the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 11 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-15899
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-03591-CRB
3:11-cr-00293-CRB-2
v.
CARLOS MEJIA-QUINTANILLA, AKA MEMORANDUM*
Wilfredo Oliva-Castro, AKA Sleepy,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 2, 2021
Submission Vacated February 3, 2021
Resubmitted August 26, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, Chief Judge, and IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Mejia-Quintanilla appeals the district court’s denial of his amended
motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253, and 2255(d), and we dismiss the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
appeal because it is barred by the appellate waiver in Mejia-Quintanilla’s plea
agreement.1
Mejia-Quintanilla’s written plea agreement expressly waived his right to
appeal or collaterally challenge his conviction or sentence. Mejia-Quintanilla was
convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1) and (2), which has the element of
violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The violation of § 924(c), in turn, has the element of
carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in this
case, murder in violation of California Penal Code § 187. Mejia-Quintanilla seeks
to challenge this conviction on the ground that he is actually innocent of violating
§ 924(j)(1), because he could not have violated § 924(c) (an element of §
924(j)(1)). Specifically, he argues that pursuant to recent Supreme Court cases, §
187 murder is not a crime of violence under § 924(c). We reject his challenge.
Because the language of Mejia-Quintanilla’s appellate waiver encompasses his
right to appeal his conviction for violating § 924(j), the appellate waiver bars
1
Mejia-Quintanilla does not dispute that his appellate waiver was entered
into knowingly and voluntarily.
2
Mejia-Quintanilla’s challenge to his conviction. See United States v. Goodall, 21
F.4th 555, 561 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-7486 (U.S. Apr. 25, 2022).2
Mejia-Quintanilla argues that despite his appellate waiver, he retained the
right to challenge his § 924(j) conviction because his claim of actual innocence is
based in part on the Supreme Court’s determination that one of the statutory
definitions of “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. See
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Mejia-Quintanilla argues that,
pursuant to Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018), he may raise this
constitutional challenge because he did not expressly waive constitutional claims in
his appellate waiver. We disagree. Even assuming that Mejia-Quintanilla’s
argument qualifies as a constitutional challenge to his conviction, Class does not
stand for the proposition that an appellate waiver must expressly waive the right to
bring constitutional claims in order to bar appeal of such claims. Rather, Class
held that a guilty plea alone does not inherently bar the appeal of a conviction, 138
S. Ct. at 803, and noted that it was undisputed in Class that the written plea
agreement in that case did not waive the defendant’s appeal, see id. at 807.
Goodall’s reasoning and conclusion does not conflict with Class, and we are bound
2
Because we decide on this ground, we do not address Mejia-Quintanilla’s
argument that his failure to raise his claim of actual innocence on direct review is
excused.
3
by our precedent to hold that Mejia-Quintanilla’s appellate waiver is enforceable
here.
DISMISSED.
4