United States of America v. ALFREDO GODOY-MACHUCA, AKA Alfredo Godoy, AKA Alfredo Machuca Gody

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO GODOY-MACHUCA, AKA
Alfredo Godoy, AKA Alfredo Machuca
Gody,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10028
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-01508-DJH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 15, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: MCKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,** District Judge.
Alfredo Godoy-Machuca pleaded guilty to Reentry of Removed Alien
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) before a Magistrate Judge on October 31, 2017. His
plea agreement contained a waiver of his right to appeal, but it was silent as to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-10028
whether his federal sentence would run concurrent with or consecutive to a state-
court sentence that he was serving at the time. On January 22, 2018, at the
beginning of his sentencing hearing, the district court accepted his guilty plea.
Godoy-Machuca was sentenced to 63 months to run consecutive to his state-court
sentence. After the sentence was imposed, Godoy-Machuca attempted to withdraw
his guilty plea, stating that his defense counsel had informed him that his sentences
would run concurrently. The district court did not permit him to do so. Godoy-
Machuca timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
dismiss the appeal.
“A defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights is enforceable if the language
of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised, and if the
waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made.” United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d
974, 986 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922 (9th
Cir. 2004)). Godoy-Machuca’s purported misunderstanding (which he raised after
the district court accepted the plea and imposed sentence) of a potential collateral
consequence of his plea agreement (which expressly disavowed any promises not
contained in writing) does not undermine the voluntary and knowing nature of the
broad waiver of appeal. The waiver is valid, and we dismiss that aspect of the
appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-10028
Godoy-Machuca’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel challenges the
voluntary and intelligent nature of his plea agreement. However, the record is not
sufficiently developed to permit review and determination of that claim on direct
appeal.1 United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing
United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2000)).
DISMISSED.
1 Our dismissal is without prejudice to Godoy-Machuca’s right to raise
his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on habeas review.

-- 3 of 3 --