Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Skyler James FOWLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 399 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 09-10457
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Skyler James FOWLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Skyler James FOWLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10457.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 13, 2010.
Elizabeth A. Olson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael K. Powell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Skyler James Fowler appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
Fowler contends that the district court committed several procedural errors, in- eluding failing to adequately explain why his sentence was not greater than necessary, consider that he was a juvenile when some of his conduct occurred, take into account the differences in adult versus juvenile punishments, and consider that the child pornography Sentencing Guidelines are not entitled to deference. Fowler also appears to contend that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The claimed errors are barred by Fowler's appeal waiver set forth in his plea agreement. See United States v. Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir.1996). Contrary to Fowler's contention, the district court's comments explaining the appeals process did not invalidate his waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 987-88 (9th Cir.2009). We therefore enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.