Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0647-01.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. Steven METHENY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30189
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 20, 2016
    Byron Chatfield, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USME—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Medford, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Per C. Olson, Hoevet Olson Howes, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, WARDLAW, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven Metheny appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1349; and making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We dismiss.

The government contends that this appeal is barred by the appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement. Metheny argues that the waiver is unenforceable because the government breached the plea agreement by advocating for an aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c). Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 2007), we dismiss. The plea agreement was silent regarding role enhancement and contained an integration clause expressly disclaiming any promises not set forth in the agreement. Accordingly, we conclude that the government did not breach the plea agreement and that the appeal waiver bars Metheny’s appeal.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.