United States of America v. Judel Espinoza-Gonzalez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUDEL ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-15778
D.C. Nos.
2:16-cv-01388-JCM
2:12-cr-00217-JCM-GWF-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Judel Espinoza-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s order denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Hill,
915 F.3d 669, 673 (9th Cir. 2019), 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).
FILED
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15778
Espinoza-Gonzalez contends that his conviction and sentence for
brandishing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) must be vacated because Hobbs
Act robbery, committed as a principal or an aider-and-abettor, is not a qualifying
predicate offense. We need not address this contention because we agree with the
government that it is waived by the valid collateral attack waiver in Espinoza-
Gonzalez’s plea agreement. Espinoza-Gonzalez maintains that, under United
States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), the appeal waiver does not
apply because his sentence is illegal. However, the “illegal sentence” exception
does not apply where, as here, the challenge is to the validity of a conviction. See
United States v. Goodall, 21 F.4th 555, 562-65 (9th Cir. 2021) (declining to extend
the illegal sentence exception to appellate waivers to challenges to illegal
convictions). Because the collateral attack waiver forecloses § 2255 relief, we
affirm the denial of Espinoza-Gonzalez’s motion. See White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d
920, 922 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e can affirm the district court on any ground
supported by the record.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --