United States v. Johnson, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24348

Johnson pled guilty under a plea agreement to distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii).
The plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal any sentence, conditioned on the sentence being constitutional.
At sentencing, the district court imposed 120 months' imprisonment followed by 5 years of supervised release.
The district court conducted a plea colloquy confirming Johnson understood his rights, the plea terms, and the waiver, including Johnson’s initial doubt about waiving appeal which was resolved in court.
Johnson challenges the appeal waiver and the supervised-release conditions; the court reviews for plain error due to lack of objection at plea.
The court ultimately affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands regarding a particular supervised-release condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made under Rule 11	Johnson contends the court failed to address him personally about the waiver terms.	Johnson maintains the waiver was not knowingly voluntary due to inadequate Rule 11 compliance.	Waiver valid; no plain Rule 11 error.
Whether Johnson's non-constitutional sentencing claims are barred by the waiver	Waiver covers all non-constitutional sentencing claims.	Waiver does not bar non-constitutional challenges.	Non-constitutional claims dismissed.
Whether Johnson's equal protection claim has merit	Disparity in crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing violates equal protection.	Sentence disparities are based on legitimate congressional purposes.	Foreclosed.
Whether the supervised-release condition restricting Rollin' 30's gang associations was proper	The association restriction is vague and overbroad, violating due process and First Amendment rights.	The restriction is narrowly tailored to deter and rehabilitate and is within discretion.	The prohibition on associating with persons associated with the Rollin' 30's gang was plain error and vacated; wear-imagery restriction upheld as within discretion; remand for substitute language.

Ma v. United States, 290 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2002) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 waiver)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (S. Ct. 1993) (plain-error framework for criminal procedure)
United States v. Randall, 162 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 1998) (definition of plain error)
United States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 11 waiver discussions and clarity in plea proceedings)
United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2007) (limits on supervised-release conditions restricting association)
United States v. Terrigno, 838 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1988) (scope of permissible supervised-release restrictions)
United States v. Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness of restrictions on activities under supervised release)
United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding association prohibitions with gang members)
United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1991) (limitations on rehabilitative conditions under supervised release)
United States v. Ross, 476 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2007) (discretion in imposing supervised-release conditions)
United States v. Harding, 971 F.2d 410 (9th Cir. 1992) (legitimacy of sentencing disparities based on policy grounds)
United States v. Dumas, 64 F.3d 1427 (9th Cir. 1995) (equal-protection considerations in sentencing)