Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richardo LOERA-CARDOSA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-21
Citations: 530 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 12-10247
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richardo LOERA-CARDOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richardo LOERA-CARDOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10247.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 21, 2013.
Nirav Kaushik Desai, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Bradley Bigelow, Esquire, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Richardo Loera-Cardosa appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.
Loera-Cardosa argues that the district court erred by failing to explain the sentence. The government contends that the appeal is barred by a valid waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir.2007). Under the terms of the unconditional appeal waiver in the parties' plea agreement, Loera-Cardosa agreed "to voluntarily give up the right to appeal the conviction and the right to appeal any aspect of the sentence imposed in this case." The language of the waiver reaches the present appeal.
Loera-Cardosa argues that the waiver is nonetheless unenforceable, as the court's failure to explain the sentence rendered the sentence illegal. This argument fails because Loera-Cardosa's sentence does not "exceed[ ] the permissible statutory penalty for the crime or violate[ ] the Constitution." Bibler, 495 F.3d at 624.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.