Case ID: f-appx_542/html/0693-01.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. Daniel Isaac MEZA, a.k.a. Wilbur Daniel Meza, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30296.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
    Stephan Alexander Collins, Esquire, Jo Ann Farrington, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jane Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, Anchorage, AK, Daniel Isaac Meza, pro se.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Isaac Meza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and (C), and 846; and international money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(B)(i), (ii). We dismiss.

The government argues that this appeal is barred by Meza’s waiver of his right to appeal his conviction. Meza argues, however, that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because, at the time of his plea, he did not know what factual findings the district court would make at sentencing and what sentence it would impose. We review de novo whether a defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.2001).

Contrary to Meza’s contention, the record reflects that he knowingly and voluntarily entqred into his plea agreement, notwithstanding the fact that it did not include a specific sentencing term. See United States v. Johnson, 67 F.3d 200, 202-03 (9th Cir.1995) (rejecting argument that a defendant cannot knowingly waive an unknown right). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. at 203.

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