Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0663-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrei MIREL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
    D. Marc Haws, Esquire, Marc Haws, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Paul E. Riggins, Riggins Law P.A., Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andrei Mirel appeals from the 38-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to improper entry by an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a); use of a false or altered passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1543; and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We dismiss.

Mirel contends that the district erred by relying on the presentence report, rather than the parties’ stipulation, to determine the loss amount under U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(1), and by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. We are precluded from reaching the merits of Mirel’s claim by a valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir.2009). Contrary to Mirel’s contention, the district court did not impose a sentence that exceeds the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as determined by the court that would trigger one of the appeal waiver exceptions set forth in the plea agreement.

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