Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Zazueta MIRANDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-20
Citations: 388 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 09-10271
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Zazueta MIRANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Zazueta MIRANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10271.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 20, 2010.
Paul Andrew Hemesath, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Jaime Zazueta Miranda appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss based on the valid appeal waiver.
Miranda contends that the appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement is unenforceable. Our review of the agreement indicates that the waiver unambiguously encompasses Miranda's challenge to his sentence. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.2005). Miranda's contention that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary because the plea colloquy was deficient is belied by the record. See id. at 1154-55.
We decline to consider on direct appeal Miranda's challenge to the validity of his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. See 'id. at 1155-56.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.