Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan MONTES-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-21
Citations: 519 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 12-50159
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan MONTES-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan MONTES-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50159.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 21, 2013.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S., Office Of The U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tara Kristine Hoveland, South Lake Tahoe, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Juan Montes-Torres appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with being a deported 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 because Montes-Tor- res waived his right to appeal pretrial constitutional defects when he entered an unconditional guilty plea. We review de novo whether a defendant waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 618 (9th Cir.2012).
When Montes-Torres entered his guilty plea, he did not preserve his right to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Thus, he waived his right to bring this appeal. See United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir.2005). Contrary to Montes-Torres's contention, the district court's statement at the subsequent sentencing hearing that he retained the right to appeal did not restore his right to appeal the court's denial of his motion to dismiss. See id. at 1176-77.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.