Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito TINOCO, a.k.a. Javier Fonseca Areaga, a.k.a. Javier Fonseca, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-08
Citations: 436 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 10-50139
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito TINOCO, a.k.a. Javier Fonseca Areaga, a.k.a. Javier Fonseca, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 436
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito TINOCO, a.k.a. Javier Fonseca Areaga, a.k.a. Javier Fonseca, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50139.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 8, 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.
Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Benito Tinoco appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
Tinoco contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) by denying him his right of allocution. Tinoco waived his right to appeal this issue and has failed to show that the waiver is invalid. Accordingly, we dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 924 (9th Cir.2004).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.