Case ID: f-appx_344/html/0386-01.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. Angel Mario GONZALEZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50293.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2009.
    
      Lawrence Casper, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mahir Tewfik Sherif, Law Offices of Ma-hir T. Sherif, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Angel Mario Gonzalez-Medina appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal entry and misuse of a passport, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and 18 U.S.C. § 1544. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

As an initial matter, the government contends that Gonzalez-Medina’s appeal is barred by an appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. The district court’s oral pronouncement that Gonzalez-Medina retained the right to appeal rendered the appeal waiver unenforceable. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995).

Gonzalez-Medina contends that the district court erred during sentencing by relying on unreliable hearsay statements contained in the presentence report. The statements relied upon contained sufficient indicia of reliability. See United States v. Chee, 110 F.3d 1489, 1492 (9th Cir.1997). Moreover, the record reflects that the district court considered the challenged statements as only one aspect of an otherwise thorough 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis. Accordingly, the sentence is procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1002 (9th Cir.2008).

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