Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0159-01.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. Nelson ROGELIO CHAIREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-30537.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 10, 2004.
    
    Decided May 14, 2004.
    Thomas J. Hopkins, AUSA, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John C. Perry, Esq., Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nelson Chairez appeals his 87-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He contends that the district court erred in denying him a downward adjustment for his role in the offense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In his plea agreement, Chairez stipulated that no specific offense characteristics applied to his case and that his final offense level would be 29, with a base offense level of 34, a 2-level reduction under the safety valve provision, and a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, he filed a motion for a downward departure, not a downward adjustment, for his role in the offense.

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s discretionary denial of a downward departure. See United States v. Campos-Fuerte, 357 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir.2004). Chairez is bound by the terms of his plea agreement and thus cannot argue that he is entitled to a downward adjustment for his role in the offense. See United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 122 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.1997). We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.