Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro SANTOS-JUATECO, a.k.a. Roberto Arturo Aca-Juateco, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-01
Citations: 615 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 14-50387
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro SANTOS-JUATECO, a.k.a. Roberto Arturo Aca-Juateco, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 438–438

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro SANTOS-JUATECO, a.k.a. Roberto Arturo Aca-Juateco, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50387.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frank T. Morell, Esquire, Chula Vista, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Alvaro Santos-Juateco appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 34-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.
Santos-Juateco contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level sentencing enhancement, imposing a term of supervised release, and finding his criminal history not to be over-represented. The government argues that the appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. We review de novo whether to enforce an appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir.2009). Under the terms of the appeal waiver, Santos-Juateco waived any right to appeal his sentence, and we therefore dismiss this appeal. See id. at 986, 988.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.