Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pedro BARRAZA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-28
Citations: 450 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 10-50280
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Pedro BARRAZA-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Pedro BARRAZA-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50280.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011.
Filed Sept. 28, 2011.
Aaron B. Clark, Jaime D. Parks, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Pedro Barraza-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction on two counts of illegal reentry and one count of escape from federal custody. He also appeals his 100-month sentence. We affirm.
1. Barraza-Lopez has waived his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)'s 70-day indictment-to-trial time limit was violated. In the plea agreement, he agreed not to appeal any rulings other than those the agreement expressly outlined. Barraza-Lopez did not raise his § 3161(c) claim before the district court, so the plea agreement of course did not list any ruling on this claim among those preserved for appeal. Barraza-Lopez therefore waived his right to raise it here. See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583 (9th Cir.2004).
Barraza-Lopez's 100-month sentence— at the low end of an unchallenged Guidelines range — was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The district court discussed all of the mitigating evidence Barraza-Lopez says was improperly discounted and explained why it accorded greater weight to the aggravating evidence. There was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burgum, 633 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir.2011) (rejecting a substantive unreasonableness challenge when the district court's findings were "rational, clearly explained and closely tied to the factual record").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. We address the other argument Barraza-Lopez raises on appeal in an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition.