Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachary James BACA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-23
Citations: 439 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 09-50181
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachary James BACA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 635–635

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachary James BACA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50181.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 23, 2011.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph B. Widman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Zachary James Baca, Jr., appeals from the 156-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
Baca pleaded guilty pursuant to a written agreement that included an appeal waiver. He contends that the government breached the agreement by making arguments in its sentencing memorandum that were designed to influence the court to impose a higher sentence then what was called for in the agreement. This contention lacks merit. The record reflects that the government fulfilled its obligation to recommend a 151-month sentence, and the information set forth in its sentencing memorandum did not constitute a breach of the plea agreement. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2000).
Because the 151-month sentence was within the parameters of the appeal waiver, and the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986 (9th Cir.2009).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.