Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo GUZMAN-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 114 F. App'x 882
Docket Number: No. 03-50621; D.C. No. CR-03-02842-LAB
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerardo GUZMAN-SOTO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 882–883

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerardo GUZMAN-SOTO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-50621.
D.C. No. CR-03-02842-LAB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
Jason M. Ohta, AUSA, USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ellis Johnston, FDSD-Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Gerardo Guzman-Soto appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. We' have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
Guzman-Soto contends that the government breached the plea agreement by un dercutting its recommended sentence. The record reveals that the government made the sentencing recommendation as provided in the plea agreement and stood by that recommendation. See United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2103, 85 L.Ed.2d 462 (1985) (per curiam); cf. United States v. Camarillo-Tello, 236 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the government breached the plea agreement where, upon defense counsel's objection that the government's recommendation was inconsistent with the plea agreement, the government responded that it had altered its recommendation). Guzman-Soto raises no other challenge to the validity of the plea agreement, which included an unconditional appeal waiver provision.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.