Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CARRILLO-BASTIDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 377 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 09-10008
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CARRILLO-BASTIDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 609–610

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CARRILLO-BASTIDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10008.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 21, 2010.
Molly E. McMurray, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leslie Ann Bowman, Esquire, Law Office of Leslie A. Bowman Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Roberto Carrillo-Bastida, pro se.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Roberto Carrillo-Bastida appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss in light of Carrillo-Bastida's valid written waiver of his right to appeal.
Carrillo-Bastida contends that the waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing and voluntary. But the record reflects that it was. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) ("We follow the rule that a waiver of the right to appeal is knowing and voluntary where the plea agreement as a whole was knowingly and voluntarily made."); see also United States v. Hernandez, 251 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.2001) ("In the absence of a formally enacted rule, a district court judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and local rules of the district.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (denial of motion for continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Further, our review of the record indicates that, at the sentencing hearing, the district court did not mischaracterize its authority to depart from the Guidelines.
We decline to consider arguments raised by Carrillo-Bastida for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Anderson, 472 F.3d 662, 668 (9th Cir.2006).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.