No. 23-537

Faisal Ashraf, aka Sal v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-11-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1) Experienced Counsel
Tags: appeal-waiver circuit-split computer-fraud-and-abuse-act criminal-procedure due-process factual-basis federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure plea-agreement
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-02-23
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the federal courts of appeals can refuse to consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis for a guilty plea when the plea agreement includes an appeal waiver

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner pleaded guilty to three counts under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. After petitioner’s plea, this Court decided Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021), which petitioner believed rendered the factual basis for his plea insufficient as a matter of law. He timely appealed, but the Ninth Circuit held that the plea agreement’s appeal waiver precluded his factual-basis challenge. Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a district court to confirm the sufficiency of the factual basis for a plea agreement before accepting a guilty plea—furthering the due process requirement that a plea be truly voluntary. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466-67 (1969). The federal courts of appeals conflict over their obligation to confirm the sufficiency of a guilty plea’s factual basis when a plea agreement includes an appeal waiver. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits hold that they cannot refuse to consider factual-basis challenges even when the agreement includes an appeal waiver, whereas the Ninth Circuit below, as well as the Tenth and D.C. Circuits, hold that an appeal waiver allows them to refuse to consider such arguments. The Question Presented is: Whether the federal courts of appeals can refuse to consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis for a guilty plea when the plea agreement includes an appeal waiver.

Docket Entries

2024-02-26
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/23/2024.
2024-02-06
2024-01-19
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-12-20
2023-12-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 19, 2024.
2023-12-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 20, 2023 to January 19, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2023)
2023-09-21
Application (23A259) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 1, 2023.
2023-09-19
Application (23A259) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 4, 2023 to December 1, 2023, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Cato Institute
Clark M. Neily IIICato Institute, Amicus
Faisal Ashraf
Erin Glenn Busby — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent