Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorena Vivina RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-16
Citations: 406 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 09-50488
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorena Vivina RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and HOLLAND, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 406
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorena Vivina RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50488.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2010.
Filed Dec. 16, 2010.
Timothy C. Perry, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frederick Carroll, Law Offices of Frederick M. Carroll, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and HOLLAND, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable H. Russel Holland, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rodriguez's appellate waiver is enforceable. The district court's oral pronouncement does not supersede the waiver. The district court merely stated that Rodriguez could contest whether her waiver was en forceable before an appellate court, not that Rodriguez could appeal her sentence on the merits. Further, the government objected to any suggestion by the district court that Rodriguez had a right to appeal. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995). The government did not breach the plea agreement by not recommending safety-valve relief because Rodriguez lied during her safety-valve debrief and in her subsequent proffer. See United States v. Shrestha, 86 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir.1996). Rodriguez's argument that enforcement of the appellate waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice is nothing more than an attempt to have the court consider the merits of her appeal, which the court cannot do because she has waived her right to appeal.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.