Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Alejandro GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-24
Citations: 469 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 09-50607
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Alejandro GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Alejandro GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50607.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
Christopher Khoo Pelham, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assis tant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Walter Richard Urban, Esquire, Law Offices of Walter R. Urban, Manhattan Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Jorge Alejandro Gutierrez appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Gutierrez contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it is grossly disproportionate to his offense. This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Jensen, 425 F.3d 698, 708 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting an Eighth Amendment disproportionality challenge to a life sentence for a defendant convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine).
Gutierrez further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. As Gutierrez has conceded, however, his plea agreement includes a valid appeal waiver which precludes us from addressing this contention.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.