United States v. Schley

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 5 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2331 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00166-JCC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW R. SCHLEY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2025** Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Matthew R. Schley appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 108-month sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Schley’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no non-frivolous arguments for appeal. Schley has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

In the plea agreement, Schley waived his right to appeal the conviction and sentence.

Our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no non-frivolous issue as to whether the appeal waiver in Schley’s plea agreement is enforceable. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We therefore dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

The record does not support Schley’s pro se contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Moreover, the sentence is within the 40-year statutory maximum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Schley’s remaining sentencing arguments are barred by the appeal waiver. We decline to address on direct appeal Schley’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

The clerk will maintain Docket Entry No. 24 under seal in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 27-13.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Schley’s pro se requests to appoint new counsel and for a continuance are denied.

DISMISSED.

2 25-2331