Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohamed Abdirisak Mohamed appealed his criminal conviction and sentence after the district court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing. He contended that the plea was involuntary because he was under the influence of drugs during plea negotiations and at the change-of-plea hearing. The government responded that he had knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal through a written plea agreement. The appeal came from the Western District of Washington, where Richard A. Jones presided, and the Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The memorandum identifies competing evidence presented below. Mohamed supplied a declaration from newly retained counsel stating that he had been under the influence and identifying the drugs involved. He also provided Bureau of Prisons disciplinary records from one month after the guilty plea showing possession and use of drugs. The government supplied a declaration from former counsel, who had represented Mohamed for sixteen months and said he did not appear to be under the influence during the relevant period. The panel also noted the district court's thorough questioning at the change-of-plea hearing and Mohamed's affirmative statements that he understood and agreed to waive his appellate rights.
The Court’s Holding
The panel first held that the written agreement's broad waiver encompassed this appeal. Mohamed had waived all rights to appeal from his conviction, pretrial rulings, and rulings made before entry of the judgment of conviction. Relying on United States v. Rahman, the court reiterated that broad, general appellate waivers cover appeals from denials of motions to withdraw guilty pleas. It therefore did not proceed to review the withdrawal denial itself for abuse of discretion; the waiver threshold controlled the disposition.
The court then rejected Mohamed's claim that the plea and waiver were involuntary. Reviewing the waiver de novo and the district court's findings for clear error, it concluded that Mohamed had not met his burden of showing that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive appellate review. The district court's credibility assessment was not clearly erroneous: it could credit Mohamed's statements during the Rule 11 colloquy and former counsel's testimony over his contrary statements. The panel invoked the strong presumption of verity attached to solemn declarations in open court and enforced the waiver.
The operative result was dismissal of the appeal, not an order directing an evidentiary hearing or permitting withdrawal of the plea. The unpublished memorandum states that it is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The panel unanimously found the case suitable for decision without oral argument under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and the submission date was October 28, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A broad waiver of appeals from a conviction and pre-judgment rulings can encompass an appeal challenging the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the appellate-waiver question de novo while reviewing the district court's underlying findings for clear error.
- Disciplinary records and later declarations did not establish that the district court clearly erred in crediting the plea colloquy and former counsel's account.
- Solemn declarations made in open court carried a strong presumption of verity in the panel's analysis of whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
- Because the waiver was enforced, the court dismissed the appeal rather than reaching an abuse-of-discretion review of the plea-withdrawal denial.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how an appeal waiver can foreclose review of a challenge to plea-withdrawal proceedings before the appellate court reaches the merits of the denial or the absence of an evidentiary hearing. It also shows the practical importance of the Rule 11 record: Mohamed's own statements at the change-of-plea hearing, together with former counsel's declaration, supported the district court's credibility determination despite later contrary evidence.
The ruling is fact-specific and unpublished, so its stated precedential reach is limited by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Its immediate consequence is nevertheless substantial for Mohamed: the conviction-and-sentence appeal was dismissed on waiver grounds, leaving the challenged district court disposition undisturbed by this appeal.