UNITED STATES v. JONES (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Derrek Jones appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and concurrent 180-month sentences for racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1963(a); conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), and 846; and distribution of controlled substances in or near a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jones’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 Jones the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Jones waived his right to appeal his convictions, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his pleas were involuntary. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Jones’s pleas. We therefore affirm as to that issue and dismiss the remainder of the appeal of his convictions.

Jones also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. We dismiss Jones’s sentencing appeal as to those aspects of his sentence that are covered by the waiver and affirm as to all other issues except as to the three supervised release conditions, standard conditions five, six, and fourteen, which were held to be unconstitutionally vague after the district court sentenced Jones. See United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 133, –––L.Ed.2d –––– (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.

We decline to address on direct appeal Jones’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was referenced in the notice of appeal. 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.