United States v. Ian Harris, 13-30289

Harris pleaded guilty to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute ≥50 g methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement that included an explicit waiver of appellate rights.
Government evidence included a controlled purchase of 200 g of methamphetamine from Harris, drugs, scales, packaging, five firearms seized from his business/vehicle, and potential coconspirator testimony; government also planned a §851 information that could trigger life sentence at trial.
At plea/sentencing proceedings the district judge warned that withdrawing the plea "would be over my strong advice," and held multiple ex parte hearings after Harris sought to fire his attorney; Harris later withdrew that motion.
Harris moved for continuances seeking a second-opinion lawyer and more time to renegotiate his plea; the court denied continuances, finding Harris manufactured disputes to preserve appellate issues.
Harris appealed, arguing (1) Rule 11 judicial participation error, (2) constructive denial of counsel/right-to-counsel issues tied to continuances, and (3) the appeal waiver was unenforceable or did not encompass his claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 11 judicial-participation remark vitiates the appeal waiver	Harris: judge’s comment advising against plea withdrawal violated Rule 11 and, if plain error, would void waiver	Gov: any Rule 11 error did not affect substantial rights given overwhelming evidence and risk of life sentence at trial	Court: Did not reach merits; under plain-error test Harris failed to show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty absent remark
Whether defendant was constructively denied counsel (and continuance denials implicated Sixth Amendment)	Harris: court effectively denied right to counsel by handling motion to fire counsel and denying continuances affecting counsel	Gov: court held ex parte hearings, did not deny motion, Harris withdrew it; continuances sought were for second opinion/renegotiation and did not implicate Sixth Amendment; district court explained denial	Court: No constructive denial; no abuse of discretion in denying continuances
Whether plea agreement appellate waiver is invalid or does not cover these claims	Harris: court’s sentencing remarks left a reasonable expectation of appeal rights and waiver language didn’t cover his sentencing-process claims	Gov: plain, explicit waiver of "right to appeal the conviction and sentence" bars these claims	Court: Waiver valid and covers the asserted claims; appeal dismissed

United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621 (9th Cir.) (appeal waiver exceptions: Rule 11 noncompliance and illegal sentence)
United States v. Garfield, 987 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir.) (limits on judicial participation in plea discussions)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Myers, 804 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir.) (reasonable-probability test for plea withdrawal under plain error)
United States v. Velazquez, 855 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir.) (constructive denial of counsel standard)
Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.) (trust breakdown and removal of counsel)
United States v. Thompson, 587 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.) (continuance denial analysis when right to counsel implicated)
United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.) (recording reasons when denying continuance that implicates counsel)
United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir.) (continuance/right-to-counsel context)
United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616 (9th Cir.) (reasonable expectation of appeal right vs. written waiver)
United States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.) (waiver language covering sentencing-process claims)
United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956 (9th Cir.) (ineffective-assistance arguments at sentencing still part of sentence appeal)
United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.) (applying plain-error standard to unpreserved Rule 11 errors)