Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Anthony RAMIREZ, a.k.a. "T", a.k.a. Big T, a.k.a. Toro, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-20
Citations: 491 F. App'x 829
Docket Number: No. 11-50320
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Anthony RAMIREZ, a.k.a. “T”, a.k.a. Big T, a.k.a. Toro, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 829–830

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Anthony RAMIREZ, a.k.a. “T”, a.k.a. Big T, a.k.a. Toro, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50320.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
Jennifer Anne Corbet, Assistant U.S., Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Becky Susan Walker James, Kathryn Lohmeyer Pounders, Law Offices of Becky Walker James, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Vincent Anthony Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Vincent Anthony Ramirez appeals from the 264-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(viii), and 846; and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). We dismiss.
Ramirez contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence and failed to explain adequately its reasons for the sentence. We are precluded from reaching the merits of Ramirez's claims by a valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir.2009). Ramirez contends that the appeal waiver should not be enforced because at his plea hearing the district court advised him that appeal waivers are generally enforceable, but that he retained the right to appeal an illegal sentence. The district court's qualified advisement did not invalidate the appeal waiver. See id. at 987-88.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.