United States v. Curtis Somoza

MEMORANDUM

Curtís D. Somoza (“Somoza”) appeals his conviction and 300 month sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and transactional money laundering — as well as the imposition of criminal forfeiture— arising from his operating a large Ponzi scheme. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Somoza’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Showalter, 569 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2009). To successfully withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, a defendant must “show a fair and just reason” for doing so. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). See Showalter, 569 F.3d at 1154 . The district court properly apprised Somoza of how and when he could bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his then-attorney Edward Robinson. Additionally, Somoza was not coerced by any party into pleading guilty, and he fully understood the nature of his plea. Thus, Somoza did not present a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea.

By pleading guilty, Somoza waived his claim that the district court erred in denying his motion to substitute counsel. An unconditional guilty plea waives “the right to appeal all non-jurisdictional antecedent…