United States of America v. Brian Michael Brewer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRIAN MICHAEL BREWER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10281
D.C. No.
2:15-cr-00301-HDM-VCF-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 19, 2017**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Brian Michael Brewer appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 210-month sentence for receipt of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b). Pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Brewer’s counsel has filed a brief stating that
FILED
SEP 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel.
Brewer has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
With the exception of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Brewer
waived his right to appeal his conviction and 210-month sentence. We decline to
review Brewer’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. See
United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that we
review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal only in the unusual
cases where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation is so
obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel).
The waiver of the right to appeal the restitution order is not enforceable
because, at the time Brewer waived the right to appeal the restitution order, he did
not receive a reasonably accurate estimate of the amount of restitution the court
would order him to pay. See United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.
2016); United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm
the restitution order.
We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the appeal waiver. See
United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3

-- 3 of 3 --