Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Ojeda BARRAZA, a.k.a. Lionel Barraza-Barraza, a.k.a. Victor Leon, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-20
Citations: 519 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 11-10345
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Ojeda BARRAZA, a.k.a. Lionel Barraza-Barraza, a.k.a. Victor Leon, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 426–426

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Ojeda BARRAZA, a.k.a. Lionel Barraza-Barraza, a.k.a. Victor Leon, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10345.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 20, 2013.
Richard J. Bender, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jill M. Thomas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Robert Forkner, Esquire, Modesto, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Hector Ojeda Barraza appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 216-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 846; possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); unlawful use of a communication facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b); and being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.
After his change of plea hearing, Ojeda Barraza agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence. He contends that his appeal waiver is unenforceable, however, because the district court did not personally address him during the sentencing hearing to determine whether his waiver was knowing and voluntary. We review for plain error, see United States v. Arellano-Gallegos, 387 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.2004), and find none. Even if the court had an obligation to canvass Ojeda Barraza as to his understanding of the waiver during the sentencing hearing, the court's failure to do so did not affect Ojeda Barraza's substantial rights because the record reflects that his waiver of appeal was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir.2009).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.