The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-30187•United States of America v. John Henry Schneider
18-30187Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJul 17, 2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN HENRY SCHNEIDER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30187
D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00077-SPW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
John Henry Schneider appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
concealment of bankruptcy assets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1). 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). Schneider’s request for oral
argument is, therefore, denied.
FILED
JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 18-30187
Schneider argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective at
sentencing for failing to object to (1) the loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1;
(2) the introduction and content of victim impact statements; and (3) the district
court’s alleged failure to properly consider and weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. We decline to address these claims on direct appeal because
the record is insufficiently developed to permit determination of the issues, and
Schneider’s legal representation was not so inadequate that it obviously denied him
his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d
1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
We decline to reach Schneider’s additional claims because he did not
specifically and distinctly raise and argue those issues in his opening brief. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.