United States v. William Knox , 707 F. App'x 928 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50079
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 8:13-cr-00220-CJC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
WILLIAM KEITH KNOX,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
William Keith Knox appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Knox contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. He
asserts that his questions and statements during the change-of-plea hearing reflect
that he did not understand the plea. He further contends that the court failed to
remedy his confusion and confirm that he was pleading guilty voluntarily, as
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires. We review the voluntariness of a
plea de novo, and an unpreserved Rule 11 claim for plain error. See United States
v. Carter, 795 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2015).
Contrary to Knox’s argument, the record reflects that the court thoroughly
reviewed all aspects of Knox’s plea with him, gave him multiple opportunities to
speak privately with his attorney, and adequately addressed his questions and
requests for clarification. The totality of the circumstances show that his plea was
knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th
Cir. 2001). Moreover, there was no plain Rule 11 error; the district court twice
confirmed that Knox was pleading guilty voluntarily and the record does not
reflect that Knox would have pled differently had the court inquired further. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2); United States v. Escamilla-Rojas, 640 F.3d 1055, 1061-
62 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50079