Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge AGUILAR-VALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-28
Citations: 402 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 09-10518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge AGUILAR-VALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge AGUILAR-VALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10518.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 28, 2010.
Grant Fondo, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel Olmos, Nolan, Armstrong & Barton, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Jorge Aguilar-Vallejo appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
Aguilar-Vallejo contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. When Aguilar-Vallejo entered an unconditional guilty plea, however, he waived the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). We therefore do not address the merits of Aguilar-Vallejo's motion to dismiss. See United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir.2005).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.