United States v. James A. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208 (9th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. James A. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208 (9th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defect claims, including the right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act.

A defendant convicted of willful failure to pay income tax after a guilty plea appeals, alleging Speedy Trial Act violations and denial of counsel. The court addresses whether a guilty plea waives these claims. The court applies the rule that a guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defect claims, including the right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act, and generally waives constitutional claims arising before the plea. The court also notes it ordinarily declines to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief unless the appellee raised the issue. Finding the district court properly advised the defendant of his right to counsel and that he voluntarily waived it, the court affirms the conviction.

121 citation events (79 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Troy Emanuel, Jr. v. Dwight Neven, No. 21-15498, 2022 WL 2915595 (9th Cir. July 25, 2022)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 209 Waiver of pre-plea claims by guilty plea97 citing cases“we ordinarily decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief”5 citing courts quote it · 92 listed here
  • Troy Emanuel, Jr. v. Dwight Neven, No. 21-15498, 2022 WL 2915595 (9th Cir. July 25, 2022).unpublished 2 cites
    (Although we ordinarily decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, we may consider them if, as here, the appellee raised the issue in its brief.)
  • Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Brnovich, No. 2:19-cv-04849 (D. Ariz. July 24, 2020).
    ([W]e ordinarily decline to consider 28 arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.)
  • Ctia - the Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 854 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2017).published 2 cites
    (we ordinarily decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief)
  • United States v. Brian Melancon, 972 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1992).published 2 cites
    (A defendant’s guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defect claims.[ ] The right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act is nonjurisdictional.)
  • United States v. James Clayton Bell, 966 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1992).published 2 cites
    (A defendant's guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defect claims. The right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act is non-jurisdictional)
  • Ctia - the Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2019).published
    (we ordinarily decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief)
  • Turner, No. 7:24-cv-00394 (W.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2026).
    See Wilson v. United States, 962 F.2d 996, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that a guilty plea waives claims concerning pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992).3 For these reasons,…
  • Goren, No. 3:24-cv-00580 (D. Or. Dec. 4, 2025).
    Nev. 2009) (district courts need not address “the merits of issues first raised in a reply, as the opposing party is not afforded any opportunity to respond”) (citing United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992)).
  • Johns, No. 3:25-cv-00850 (D. Or. Oct. 20, 2025).
    Nev. 2009) (district courts need not address “the merits of issues first raised in a reply, as the opposing party is not afforded any opportunity to respond”) (citing United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992)).
  • Hamilton v. Yavapai Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 3:12-cv-08193 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2025).
    Cal. April 17, 2019) (citing United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992)) (“Although courts generally do not review issues raised for the first time in areply brief, they may consider them if the new issue argued is offered in…
Show 82 more citing cases
  • Humphrey v. United States, No. 1:23-cv-01150 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 5, 2024).
    (holding that pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel claims are waived)
  • United States v. Emmett Miguel, No. 23-10030 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2024).unpublished
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
  • Pacira Pharm., Inc. v. Rsch. Dev. Found., No. 2:21-cv-02241 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2024).
    See, e.g., Smith v. 8 Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992) 9 (discussing that courts generally decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply 10 brief).
  • Gayk Pogosyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-07996 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2024).
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).
  • In re Alicia Marie Richards, No. 23-1007 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2023).unpublished
    Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938 , 952 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam)).
  • Doe v. Boys & Girls Clubs of S. Nevada, No. 2:23-cv-01202 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2023).
    The Court will not consider new matters developed for the 26 first time in a Reply. “[I]t is improper for a party to raise a new argument in a reply brief.” United States v. Boyce, 148 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1085 (S.D.Cal.2001) aff'd, 36 F. App'x…
  • Wilson v. Poor, No. 3:19-cv-05920 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2023).
    (noting that courts “ordinarily decline to consider arguments raised for the first 22 time in a reply brief)
  • Barrett Bus. Servs. Inc v. Colmenero, No. 1:22-cv-03122 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2022).
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992).
  • (HC) Trevizo v. Borders, No. 1:16-cv-01845 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2021).
    See also Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 , 62 n. 22 2 (1975); United States v. Foreman, 329 F.3d 1037, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2003) (precluding pre-plea 23 motion for substitute counsel claim); Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d 690, 700 (9th Cir. 1994)…
  • United States v. Jack Hessiani, No. 19-50048 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2020).unpublished
    See Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Airlines Div. v. Allegiant Air, LLC, 788 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We have discretion to consider an issue raised in a reply brief . . . .”); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992) (pe…
  • (HC) Scott v. Fox, No. 2:18-cv-02687 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2020). 3 cites
    (per 19 curiam)
  • Asse Int'l, Inc. v. Kerry, 223 F. Supp. 3d 996 (C.D. Cal. 2016).published
    Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938 , 952 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)).
  • Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Allegiant Air, LLC, 788 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2015).published
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
  • Plumaj v. Booker, 33 F. Supp. 3d 897 (E.D. Mich. 2014).published
    (holding that pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel claims are waived)
  • Pasquale Nigro v. M. Evans, 399 F. App'x 279 (9th Cir. 2010).unpublished
    See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 , 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
  • Hector v. Poulos, 648 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (C.D. Cal. 2009).published
    See, e.g., Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d 690, 700 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 976 , 116 S.Ct. 479 , 133 L.Ed.2d 407 (1995) (“[Petitioner’s] contention that his attorneys were ineffec tive because they failed to attempt to prevent th…
  • United States v. Alexander, 285 F. App'x 403 (9th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    (holding that a defendant’s unconditional guilty plea waives his right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act)
  • United States v. Friedlander, 217 F. App'x 664 (9th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 , 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (holding that defendant’s preplea ineffective assistance of counsel issue was waived).
  • People v. Owen, 122 P.3d 1006 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).published
    See United States v. Gonzalez-Arimont, 268 F.3d 8, 11-13 (1st Cir.2001); United States v. Cox, 985 F.2d 427, 433 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.199…
  • Coronel v. Paul, 316 F. Supp. 2d 868 (D. Ariz. 2004).published
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2002).published 2 cites
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) ("Although we ordinarily decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, we may consider them if, as here, the appellee raised the issue in its…
  • United States v. Franco, 41 F. App'x 889 (7th Cir. 2002).unpublished
    See United States v. Gonzalez-Arimont, 268 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir.2001); United States v. Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir.1997); United States v. Coffin, 76 F.3d 494, 496 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir.…
  • United States v. Benavides, 57 M.J. 550 (A.F.C.C.A. 2002).published
    Gonzalez-Arimont, 268 F.3d at 12 (citing Taylor v. United States, 204 F.3d 828, 829 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding appellant’s Speedy Trial Act claim was waived by his plea of guilty); United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir.1992) (hol…
  • United States v. Gonzalez-Arimont, 268 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001).published
    Taylor v. United States, 204 F.3d 828, 829 (8th Cir.2000) (holding that appellant’s Speedy Trial Act claim was waived by his plea of guilty); United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that a defendant who knowingly a…
  • Douglas Edward Green v. Charles L. Ryan Grant Woods, 87 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1996).unpublished
    United States v. Boce, 488 U.S. 563, 574 (1988); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (explaining that a guilty plea generally waives all claims of a constitutional nature occurring before the plea). 21 Acco…
  • United States v. Dion Anthony Matthews, 89 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 1996).unpublished
    See Broce, 488 U.S. at 574 ; Moran, 57 F.3d at 700 (explaining that plea precluded habeas petitioner from raising pre-plea claim that his attorney failed to challenge petitioner's confession); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th…
  • Robert R. Sterling v. M. Pickett, 77 F.3d 490 (9th Cir. 1996).unpublished
    (holding that a guilty plea waives claims of pre-plea constitutional violations)
  • Ferguson v. United States, 911 F. Supp. 424 (C.D. Cal. 1995).published 2 cites
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
  • United States v. Dion Matthews, 62 F.3d 1426 (9th Cir. 1995).unpublished 2 cites
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
  • Rex Marvin Perry v. United States, 59 F.3d 175 (9th Cir. 1995).published 2 cites
    United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 574 (1988); United States v. Cortez, 973 F.2d 764, 767 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that guilty plea precluded defendant from challenging pre-plea selective prosecution claim but not from challenging knowin…
  • United States v. Ronald J. Dupard, 43 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995).unpublished
    Although the Court will address an argument raised by appellant for the first time in the reply brief if appellee raised the issue in the responding brief, United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992), the mere fact of reliance…
  • United States v. Richard G. Gaumer, 27 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 1994).unpublished
    However, because the district court found that defendant did not sincerely believe what he claimed to believe, namely, that he had no duty to file returns or pay income tax, the element of willfulness which defendant admitted in his pleas…
  • United States v. James H. Gunn, 16 F.3d 1226 (7th Cir. 1994).published
    Lebowitz v. United States, 877 F.2d 207, 209 (2d Cir.1989); United States v. Lo Franco, 818 F.2d 276 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Andrews, 790 F.2d 803 (10th Cir.1986), cert. deni…
  • United States v. Hugh Mack Vickers, 15 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1993).published 3 cites
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992). 8 Here, Vickers pleaded guilty on June 14, 1991.
  • United States v. Charlie Burns, 972 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished
    United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Edelstein, No. 2:25-cv-00003 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2025).
    (exercising discretion and electing to consider argument raised for first time on reply)
  • Newcomb v. Angol, No. 3:24-cv-00125 (D. Alaska Mar. 10, 2025).
    Finally, with respect to Mr. Newcomb’s fourth claim in this petition, the state court docket shows that Mr. Newcomb was granted a representation hearing after corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a)”; Rule 1(a) covers 28 U.S.C. § 2254 pet…
  • United States v. Gregorio Degracia, 972 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished
  • United States v. Andres Fontes-Lopez, 972 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished
  • United States v. Gary A. Strunk, 980 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished
  • United States v. Robert Brian Boeckman, 993 F.2d 884 (9th Cir. 1993).unpublished
  • United States v. Alan Hardy Jeffries, 995 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1993).unpublished
  • United States v. Oliver N. Gill, Jr., 1 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 1993).published
  • United States v. Manuel Solis, 67 F.3d 310 (9th Cir. 1995).unpublished
  • Charles L. Boylan v. Sam Sublett Grant Woods, 97 F.3d 1458 (9th Cir. 1996).unpublished
  • Charles Joseph Feo v. Meg Savage Attorney Gen. for the State of Arizona, 108 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1997).unpublished
  • Rene Samaniego Morales v. Terry Stewart, 112 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1997).unpublished
  • Ricardo Garcia v. Kay Walter, 122 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1997).unpublished
  • Peter Wong v. Ivalee Henry, 124 F.3d 215 (9th Cir. 1997).unpublished
  • United States v. Sidney Lapham, 142 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 1998).unpublished
  • United States v. Brijido Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2007).published
  • United States v. James Jackson, 697 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2012).published
  • Carstarphen v. Milsner, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Nev. 2009).published
  • Ralbovsky v. Kane, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2005).published
  • Ruff v. Cnty. of Kings, 700 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (E.D. Cal. 2010).published
  • Martinez v. United States, 90 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (D. Haw. 2000).published
  • Competitive Tech., Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd., 333 F. Supp. 2d 858 (N.D. Cal. 2004).published
  • United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (S.D. Cal. 2001).published
  • United States v. Robinette, 177 F. Supp. 2d 279 (D. Del. 2001).published
  • Kevin Almy v. Brandon Davis, No. 14-17581 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2018).unpublished
  • United States v. Oscar Chavez-Diaz, 949 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2020).published
  • United States v. Stiger, 20 F. App'x 307 (6th Cir. 2001).unpublished
  • Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 258 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2017).published
  • United States v. Brown, 150 F. App'x 718 (9th Cir. 2005).unpublished
  • United States v. Durrani, 291 F. App'x 846 (9th Cir. 2008).unpublished
  • United States v. Rodriguez, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2013).published
  • Danny McDowell v. Walmart Inc., No. 5:22-cv-00897 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2022).
  • Kenneth Johnson v. Prologis NA2 U.S., LLC, No. 5:22-cv-01381 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2022).
  • Turner Greenberg LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 3:20-cv-01948 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020).
  • Brown v. Montgomery, No. 3:21-cv-01550 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2022).
  • Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00285 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2024).
  • Walden 614234 v. Curley, No. 2:22-cv-00179 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 11, 2023).
  • Zemke 324731 v. King, No. 1:20-cv-00020 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2024).
  • Anderson 505022 v. Christiansen, No. 1:24-cv-00118 (W.D. Mich. May 23, 2024).
  • Watkins v. Rapid Fin. Solutions, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00509 (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2022).
  • Arechiga v. Archambeault, No. 2:23-cv-00600, 2023 WL 5207589 (D. Nev. Aug. 11, 2023).
  • Humphries v. Button, No. 2:21-cv-01412 (D. Nev. Apr. 2, 2024).
  • Craig v. Hawthorne Mach. Co., No. 3:20-cv-01625 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2024).
  • Rey v. Rey, No. 3:14-cv-05093 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 28, 2021).
  • Berg v. Bethel Sch. Dist., No. 3:18-cv-05345 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2022).
  • Goldup v. Valley View Casino & Hotel, No. 3:24-cv-00786 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2025).
  • Silverberg, No. 2:25-cv-01314 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2025).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James A. BOHN, Defendant-Appellant
91-30011.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 6, 1992.
Published opinion
956 F.2d 208
92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1120
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1338
1992 WL 17761
James A. Bohn, pro se., Thomas O. Rice, Asst. U.S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Wallace, Sneed, Alarcon.
Cited by 102 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 93%
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
PER CURIAM:

James A. Bohn appeals pro se his conviction, following a guilty plea, to three counts of willful failure to pay income tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Bohn challenges his conviction based upon a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(e), and denial of assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bohn was initially charged with three counts of attempted income tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. A jury trial resulted in conviction on all three counts. Bohn appealed his conviction to this court and we reversed and remanded. United States v. Bohn, 890 F.2d 1079 (9th Cir.1989). On remand, Bohn pled guilty to three counts of willful failure to pay income tax and was sentenced. Bohn appealed.

By pleading guilty, Bohn waived his right to assert a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. See United States v. Broncheau, 597 F.2d 1260, 1262 n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 859, 100 S.Ct. 123, 62 L.Ed.2d 80 (1979). A defendant’s guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defect claims. See id. The right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act is nonjurisdic-tional. See United States v. Yunis, 723 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1984); Lebowitz v. United States, 877 F.2d 207, 209 (2d Cir.1989).

Next, Bohn contends that he was denied the right to assistance of counsel at an in camera hearing to determine the validity of his claim raised in connection with his income tax violations. Bohn’s guilty plea waived any such alleged constitutional claim. See United States v. Caperell, 938 F.2d 975, 977 (9th Cir.1991) (a guilty plea generally waives all claims of a constitutional nature occurring before the plea).

In his reply brief, Bohn argues for the first time that he was also denied assistance of counsel at the change of plea hearing. Although we ordinarily decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, we may consider them if, as here, the appellee raised the issue in its brief. See Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1990).

“Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2) a district court is not to accept a guilty plea until it is satisfied that the defendant understands that [he] has a right to counsel at every stage of the proceeding.” United States v. Fuller, 941 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir.1991). We are satisfied that the district court discharged its duty in this regard. The record shows that Bohn waived his right to assistance of counsel by voluntarily choosing to represent himself at the change of plea hearing after the court warned him about the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se. See id. Thus, this claim is also meritless.

AFFIRMED.