United States v. William Billow

MEMORANDUM

William Lawrence Billow appeals his convictions for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5)(B). Billow also claims ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim at trial, and challenges a special condition of supervised release contained in his sentence. The facts are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We DISMISS in part, DENY in part, and VACATE AND REMAND in part.

We review Billow’s Fourth Amendment claim de novo. See United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir.2006). Billow concedes that he did not raise his Fourth Amendment claim in the form of a motion to suppress before the district court. Thus, Billow’s Fourth Amendment claim is waived, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(C), (e), and such a waiver “places the issue beyond the scope of our ability to review for plain error.” United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.2002). Rule 12 provides, however, an exception such that “[f]or good cause, [we] may grant relief from th[at] waiver.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). Although Billow asserts that ineffective assistance of counsel provides good cause for failing to raise his Fourth…