Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hamilton John MAXWELL, aka Hamilton Maxwell, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-16
Citations: 171 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 04-50346
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hamilton John MAXWELL, aka Hamilton Maxwell, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hamilton John MAXWELL, aka Hamilton Maxwell, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50346.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 16, 2006.
April Anita Christine, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gretchen Fusilier, Esq., Carlsbad, CA, Hamilton John Maxwell, Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hamilton John Maxwell appeals from his 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding 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).
We grant Maxwell's motion for leave to file his reply brief one day late. The clerk is instructed to file the reply brief received on August 26, 2005.
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.