Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 703 F. App'x 560
Docket Number: Nos. 16-10394, 16-10438
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 560–561

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 16-10394, 16-10438
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 20, 2017
Matthew Cassell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Eric Scott Manch, Manch Law Firm PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: CANBY, TROTT, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez appeals the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the partially consecutive 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. In Appeal No. 16-10438, we dismiss. In Appeal No. 16-10394, we affirm.
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011), we conclude that Appeal No, 16-10438 is barred by a valid appeal waiver. The terms of the appeal waiver in Ramos-Rodriguez's disposition agreement unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. See id. Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez's contention, the record reflects that he waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009).
In Appeal No. 16-10394, Ramos-Rodriguez argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his sentencing arguments and explain the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Ramos-Rodriguez's arguments and sufficiently explained the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez's contention, the sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including his significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Appeal No. 16-10394: AFFIRMED.
Appeal No. 16-10438: DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,