Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Braulio BARAJAS-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-23
Citations: 674 F. App'x 739
Docket Number: No. 15-30358
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Braulio BARAJAS-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 739–740

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Braulio BARAJAS-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30358
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 23, 2017
Benjamin David Seal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Washington, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
David M. Miller, Attorney, Miller <& Prothero, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Braulio Barajas-Zarate appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We dismiss.
Barajas-Zarate challenges the district court's denial of safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Barajas-Zarate's plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal of his within-Guidelines sentence. See id. at 1205-06. Contrary to Barajas-Zarate's contention, the record reflects that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. We decline to consider on direct appeal Barajas-Zarate's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.