Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenny William RAMIREZ-JUAREZ, a.k.a. Jose Oscar Barrera, a.k.a. Alvaro Antonio Ramirez Juarez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-02
Citations: 477 F. App'x 472
Docket Number: No. 11-50184
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenny William RAMIREZ-JUAREZ, a.k.a. Jose Oscar Barrera, a.k.a. Alvaro Antonio Ramirez Juarez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 477
Pages: 472–472

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenny William RAMIREZ-JUAREZ, a.k.a. Jose Oscar Barrera, a.k.a. Alvaro Antonio Ramirez Juarez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50184.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 2, 2012.
Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Joshua Robbins, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca Putnam Jones, Rebecca P. Jones, Attorney at Law PC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Kenny William Ramirez-Juarez appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to harbor and conceal illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). We dismiss.
Ramirez-Juarez contends that the district court violated his due process rights by imposing, based on uncorroborated and unreliable information, a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(4) for smuggling or harboring an unaccompanied minor. We are precluded from reaching the merits of Ramirez-Juarez's claim by a valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 958-59 (9th Cir.2000).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.