United States of America v. Marquee Munerlyn

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARQUEE MUNERLYN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10270
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00328-HDM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Marquee Munerlyn appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We dismiss.
Munerlyn contends that the district court erred by denying an adjustment for
FILED
SEP 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The government argues that
this appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver contained in the plea
agreement. Munerlyn responds that the appeal waiver cannot be enforced because
the government breached the plea agreement by refusing to recommend an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. We review de novo whether to
enforce an appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir.
2009). The plea agreement obligated the government to recommend an adjustment
for acceptance of responsibility only if Munerlyn refrained from making false
statements concerning conduct relevant to the offense. Because Munerlyn made
false statements concerning the relevant conduct of his coschemers, the
government did not breach the plea agreement. See United States v. Rutledge, 28
F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 1994) (denial of adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility is appropriate if defendant falsely denies relevant conduct); see
also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & cmt. n.2 (relevant conduct includes reasonably
foreseeable acts of coschemers). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in light of
the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.
DISMISSED.
14-10270 2

-- 2 of 2 --