Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10657421
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Campbell
No. 10657421 · Decided August 20, 2025
No. 10657421·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
August 20, 2025
Citation
No. 10657421
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2891
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:20-cr-06018-SAB-1
v. MEMORANDUM*
KYLE RAY CAMPBELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2025**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: GRABER, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Kyle Ray Campbell appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress and from his sentence for possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vi). As the parties are familiar
*
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).
with the facts, we do not recount them here. The district court had jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.
1. Campbell does not contest the district court’s conclusion that on its face,
the affidavit underlying the search warrant established probable cause. However,
he contends that the district court erred in rejecting his claim under Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). “A Franks hearing determines ‘the validity of the
affidavit underlying a search warrant.’” United States v. Norris, 942 F.3d 902, 909
(9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). If, at the hearing, the defendant establishes
“perjury or reckless disregard,” and “with the affidavit’s false material set to one
side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause,
the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded.” Franks,
438 U.S. at 156. “To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a substantial
preliminary showing that: (1) ‘the affiant officer intentionally or recklessly made
false or misleading statements or omissions in support of the warrant,’ and (2) ‘the
false or misleading statement or omission was material, i.e., necessary to finding
probable cause.’” Norris, 942 F.3d at 910–11 (citation omitted). As Campbell has
not shown that any purported omission that he identifies was false or misleading,
the district court properly denied his suppression motion and Franks hearing
2 24-2891
request.1
2. Campbell also asks us to review the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence. However, his plea agreement “expressly waive[d] his right to appeal his
conviction and/or sentence, except that [he] retain[ed] the right to appeal the
district court’s ruling on his motion to suppress.” That waiver encompasses
Campbell’s sentencing claim. And because the district court complied with
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) in accepting Campbell’s plea, the appeal
waiver is valid and enforceable. See United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922 (9th
Cir. 2004) (providing that an appeal waiver is enforceable if it encompasses the
ground raised on appeal and was knowingly and voluntarily made); United States
v. Brizan, 709 F.3d 864, 866 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that where “[t]he district court
conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy,” it “ensur[ed] that the plea was knowing
and voluntary”). Accordingly, we dismiss Campbell’s sentencing claim.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
1
We decline to reach Campbell’s separate challenge to the denial of Cameron Earl
Campbell’s motion to suppress. Campbell did not challenge the search of
Cameron Campbell’s belongings before the district court, and he has not shown
good cause on appeal for us to reach the issue. See United States v. Guerrero, 921
F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that “‘[a] theory for suppression not
advanced in district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal’ absent a
showing of good cause” (quoting United States v. Keesee, 358 F.3d 1217, 1220
(9th Cir. 2004))).
3 24-2891
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No.
03Kyle Ray Campbell appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and from his sentence for possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.
04As the parties are familiar * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Campbell in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on August 20, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10657421 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.