
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lamar SPRATT, a.k.a. Ken Sparks, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50254.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 4, 2015.
    
    Filed May 19, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Jennifer Y. Chou, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alissa Peterson, Esquire, Law Offices of Alissa Sawano Peterson, Irvine, CA, Kenneth Lamar Spratt, pro se.
    
      Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable For decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Lamar Spratt pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

1. Spratt’s plea agreement contains a general waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. This waiver covers the grounds for this appeal, including Spratt’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.2011), and Spratt’s challenges to his sentence.

2. “The record shows that [Spratt] ■waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily,” United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986 (9th Cir.2009), and we are satisfied that the district court complied with Rule 11 when it accepted Spratt’s guilty plea, United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.2005), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). And although the district court and the government made minor errors during the colloquy, those errors do not require reversal because they did not affect Spratt’s substantial rights. See United States v. Ross, 511 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.2008).

3. Finally, we do not consider Spratt’s argument that his counsel was ineffective because, “[a]s a general rule, we do not review challenges to the effectiveness of defense counsel on direct appeal.” Rah-man, 642 F.3d at 1259 (quoting Jeronimo, 398 F.3d at 1155) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Brizan, 709 F.3d 864, 867 (9th Cir.2013).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     