Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 07-30215
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30215.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008 .
Filed March 10, 2008.
Earl Allan Hicks, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Tracy A. Staab, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Rodriguez-Morales appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and being an alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
As an initial matter, the government contends this appeal is barred by the written appeal waiver in Rodriguez-Morales' plea agreement. This contention is unpersuasive, because the district court advised Rodriguez-Morales at the change of plea hearing that he could appeal his sentence. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.2005).
Rodriguez-Morales contends his sentence was unreasonable. We conclude the sentence was not unreasonable in light of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Rodriguez-Morales also raises a variety of contentions relating to the scope and continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). As Rodriguez-Morales concedes in his brief, these contention are foreclosed by existing precedent. See United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d 748, 751 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.