United States v. APRIL WILBUR
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
- Trial judge
- Marsha J. Pechman (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30355 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00191-MJP-3 v. MEMORANDUM* APRIL M. WILBUR, Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30356 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00191-MJP-1 v. C. MARVIN WILBUR, AKA Marvin Wilbur, Sr., Defendant - Appellant.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30357 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00191-MJP-4 v. BRENDA R. WILBUR, Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30363 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00191-MJP-2 v. JOAN C. WILBUR, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Marsha J. Pechman, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 6, 2013 Seattle, Washington Before: SCHROEDER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District Judge.** ** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
-2- The Wilburs appeal the district court’s denial of their joint motion to withdraw their guilty pleas following this court’s remand for re-sentencing.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The Wilburs’ guilty pleas were conditioned upon their right to raise a due process challenge on direct appeal. They contend that a prior panel of this Court failed to consider their challenge.
The district court was correct in finding that a prior panel of this Court had fully considered and addressed the due process arguments, as evidenced by the opinion in United States v. Wilbur, 674 F.3d 1160, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012), and the Wilburs’ petition for rehearing and the denial of that petition. That determination is sufficient to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Wilburs’ joint motion to withdraw their guilty pleas after remand.
AFFIRMED.
-3-