UNITED STATES v. HILL AKA (2018)

MEMORANDUM ***

Robert Lamar Hill appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(i), (b)(1)(C), and 846.

We reject Hill’s argument that his appellate waiver is unenforceable because counsel inaccurately predicted the ultimate sentence. Counsel’s prediction was not a gross mischaracterization of the sentence imposed by the court, and “a defendant can validly waive appeal rights without being informed of the severity of the sentence that will be imposed” so long as counsel’s “inaccuracy was not a ‘gross mischaracterization.’ ” United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 784 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2005) ). Hill’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument likewise fails because “a mere inaccurate prediction, standing alone, would not constitute ineffective assistance.” Iaea v. Sunn, 800 F.2d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1986).

We also reject Hill’s argument that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not understand the process by which the court would determine his sentence under the Guidelines. The process was accurately explained in the plea agreement, and the district court further explained the process in detail at the plea colloquy, providing examples of how the Guidelines range would be calculated. Hill’s statement that he understood the process carries “a strong presumption of veracity in subsequent proceedings attacking the plea.” United States v. Ross, 511 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 2008).

DISMISSED.