FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10320 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cr-08083- v. DLR-1 MAURICE XAVIER HOLLINS, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 18, 2023 Phoenix, Arizona Filed June 20, 2023 Before: John B. Owens and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges, and M. Miller Baker,* International Trade Judge. Opinion by Judge Owens * The Honorable M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 UNITED STATES V. HOLLINS SUMMARY** Criminal Law Dismissing Maurice Hollins’s appeal from his conviction for abusive sexual contact of a child under age twelve, the panel held that Hollins’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the appellate waiver included in his plea agreement was therefore in force. The panel held that the district court’s failure to inform Hollins that his conviction could potentially lead to subsequent civil commitment, community notification, and geographic restrictions on his residence and workplace did not render his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary because these three post-release effects were collateral rather than direct consequences of the plea. Following United States v. Delgado-Ramos, 635 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), the panel held that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), holding that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise a client whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation, does not require a court, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, to advise a defendant about possible civil commitment, geographic restrictions, and community notification consequences of a guilty plea. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. HOLLINS 3 COUNSEL Donna L. Elm (argued), Law Practice of Donna Elm, Cottonwood, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant. Jason T. Crowley (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Krissa M. Lanham, Appellate Division Chief; Gary M. Restaino, United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiff- Appellee. OPINION OWENS, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant Maurice Hollins pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact of a child under age twelve in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2244(a)(5), and 2246(3). He now argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, and therefore his appeal waiver is invalid, because the district court failed to inform him that his conviction could potentially lead to subsequent civil commitment, community notification, and geographic restrictions on his residence and workplace. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Hollins, a non-Indian resident of Arizona, had unlawful sexual contact with an eight-year-old member of the Navajo Nation Indian Tribe while within the confines of the Navajo Nation. An indictment charged Hollins with three counts, and he agreed to plead guilty to Count Two, abusive sexual 4 UNITED STATES V. HOLLINS contact of a child under age twelve. Pursuant to the plea …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals