Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco VILLAGOMEZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-23
Citations: 203 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 05-50376
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco VILLAGOMEZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco VILLAGOMEZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50376.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.
Filed Oct. 23, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Francisco Villagomez-Castillo, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Wayne R. Young, Esq., Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Villagomez-Castillo appeals from his 87-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 846 and 841(a)(1). Villagomez-Castillo contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant his motion to substitute counsel.
We dismiss Villagomez-Castillo's appeal because his valid guilty plea waived the right to appeal antecedent defects. See United States v. Foreman, 329 F.3d 1037, 1038 (9th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that the changes in sentencing law imposed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing). Moreover, during his change of plea hearing, Villagomez-Castillo expressed satisfaction with counsel that he previously sought to replace.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.