Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0425-01.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. Abel ALVAREZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
    Peter Ko, Andrew Richard Haden, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Devin Burstein, Devin Burstein, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Abel Alvarez-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the substantive reasonableness of the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.

The government argues that this appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement. Alvarez-Sanchez responds that the appeal waiver should not be enforced because the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ll(b)(l)(N) by failing to inform him of, and determine he understood, the terms of the waiver. He also contends that he reasonably believed that he could appeal any sentence greater than 24 months. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal, and for plain error the adequacy of the plea colloquy. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981, 987 (9th Cir.2009). The record reflects that, during the plea colloquy, the court addressed Alvarez-Sanchez personally and confirmed that he had discussed the appeal waiver with his attorney and understood the rights he was giving up. In addition, Alvarez-Sanchez confirmed in writing and orally that he had read the entire plea agreement, understood its terms, and discussed it with his attorney. Finally, at sentencing Alvarez-Sanchez confirmed his understanding that the waiver applied. Taking into account the record as a whole, any Rule 11 error did not affect Alvarez-Sanchez’s substantial rights. See United States v. Ma, 290 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, Alvarez-Sanchez’s argument regarding his understanding of the waiver is unsupported by either the language of the plea agreement or the record. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.

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