Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0974-01.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. Jose Prospero Felix ZEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50558.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Prospero Felix Zepeda appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss based on the valid appeal waiver.

Zepeda contends that the district court failed to calculate the advisory Guidelines’ range correctly and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We decline to reach this contention in light of the valid appeal waiver in Zepeda’s plea agreement. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.2007).

Zepeda contends his appeal waiver is invalid for several reasons. First, he contends that the Government breached the plea agreement. This contention is belied by the record. Second, Zepeda contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal because he was not adequately informed of the sentence he faced. The record indicates that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and that Zepeda was adequately informed. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182-84 (9th Cir.2000).

Finally, Zepeda contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when advising him to plead guilty. The record in this case is not sufficiently developed to evaluate Zepeda’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2005).

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