United States v. Floyd Harshman

AMENDED MEMORANDUM

Floyd Harshman appeals his conviction and sentence following entry of a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement. He argues that the waiver of his appellate rights in the plea agreement is unenforceable and that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We dismiss his appeal based on the waiver. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because an appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea is an appeal from his convictions, Rahman’s appellate waiver extends to this appeal.”).

1. Harshman has not demonstrated that the conditions of his pretrial confinement rendered his waiver involuntary. See id. (observing that a waiver of appellate rights is enforceable only if it is voluntarily made). The district court engaged Harsh-man in a lengthy colloquy at his change-of-plea hearing, a colloquy Harshmaris counsel did not challenge on appeal but rather acknowledged at oral argument was ,“[a]c-tually pretty — fairly well done.” The thorough colloquy suffices to demonstrate that Harshman’s waiver was voluntary. See United States v. Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir.…