Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-29
Citations: 479 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 11-10570
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 71–71

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10570.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed June 29, 2012.
Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. USRE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ramon Acosta, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDNV — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, 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
Rafael Arias appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to distribution of 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
Arias contends that the district court erred in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c) based on Arias being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of the criminal activity. Arias's knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal any sentence that was within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, contained in his written plea agreement, precludes our consideration of this issue. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir.2011).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.