Siofele
United States v. Siofele
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*755 MEMORANDUM **
Ridge Siofele appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
Siofele contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the government breached his plea agreement by disregarding the stipulation that it would not argue at sentencing that Siofele did not meet the five criteria for the safety valve specified in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f). This contention lacks merit because the government complied with the plain language of the plea agreement. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that a court looks to and enforces the plain language of a plea agreement), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 272 , 151 L.Ed.2d 199 (2001).
Siofele appears to raise four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. We do not address Siofele’s contention, that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate…