United States v. Derrek Jones ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 4 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50317
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00338-SJO-16
DERREK JONES, a.k.a. Dirty D, a.k.a.
Derek Jones, a.k.a. Derek Tugwell Jones, MEMORANDUM*
a.k.a. Derrek G. Jones, a.k.a. Derrek Gene
Jones, a.k.a. Derrick Jones, a.k.a. Derek
Tugwell,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
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).
§§ 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 (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 (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, 2018
WL 2726034 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2018) (No. 17-9208); see also United States v. Watson,
2 17-50317
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.
3 17-50317