Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CASTILLO-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 228 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 06-30405
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ernesto CASTILLO-ROJAS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ernesto CASTILLO-ROJAS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-30405.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 20, 2007.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Leonie G.H. Grant, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter K. Mair, Esq., Mair, Camiel & Kovach, P.S., Robert M. Leen, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ernesto Castillo-Rojas appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We reject the government's contention that the invited error doctrine precludes us from considering the merits of this appeal. See United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).
Castillo-Rojas contends that the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly found that Castillo-Rojas's co-defendant possessed firearms in connection with the offense, and that the possession of firearms in connection with a major drug sale was reasonably foreseeable. See United States v. Ortiz, 362 F.3d 1274, 1277-78 (9th Cir.2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.