FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-55064
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 8:10-cv-00984-AG
8:06-cr-00209-AG-1
v.
SCOTT WELKER, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, District Judge.**
Scott Welker appeals from the district court’s order denying, as procedurally
defaulted, his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion challenging his guilty-plea
conviction and 33-month sentence for honest services wire fraud, in violation of 18
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we
affirm.
Welker, citing Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2931 (2010),
contends he is actually innocent of the charge to which he pleaded guilty, thereby
excusing his procedural default. However, substantial evidence supports the
district court’s findings and conclusions that Welker has failed to demonstrate that
he is actually innocent of multiple counts of traditional wire fraud and more serious
charges of bank fraud that the government agreed to forego during the course of
plea negotiations. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 624 (1998).
AFFIRMED.
2