Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ildelisa Urena RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-26
Citations: 192 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 05-50518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Ildelisa Urena RODRIGUEZ, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Ildelisa Urena RODRIGUEZ, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 05-50518.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 26, 2006.
Peter Ko, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn H. Ball, Esq., Law Office of Lynn H. Ball, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ildelisa Urena Rodriguez appeals from her 70-month sentence imposed after her guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We reject the government's assertion that appellant's appeal waiver is valid and enforceable. See United States v. Pena, 314 F.3d 1152, 1154 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003) ('We note, moreover, that the district court did not inform Pena of his appellate rights and did not verify his intent to forfeit them during the plea colloquy, as it was required to do.").
Appellant contends that, because her prior conviction for a misdemeanor was uncounselled and she received a suspended sentence, her prior conviction should not have been counted toward her criminal history score, and, therefore, the district court should have granted a safety valve reduction. We disagree. The district court did not clearly err in finding that appellant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that her prior conviction was constitutionally infirm. See United, States v. Allen, 153 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Newman, 912 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.