Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Anthony BARRAGAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-16
Citations: 185 F. App'x 626
Docket Number: No. 05-50178
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Anthony BARRAGAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Anthony BARRAGAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50178.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2006.
Decided June 16, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Robert Edward Dugdale, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Anthony Barragan, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Karyn H. Bucur, Karyn H. Bucur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mark Anthony Barragan appeals from his 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to dis tribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Barragan's constitutional challenges are foreclosed by prior decisions of this court. See United, States v. Kilby, 443 F.3d 1135, 1143 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a district court should resolve factual disputes at a post-Booker sentencing by applying the preponderance of evidence standard); United States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 918-21 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the retroactive application of the remedial opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not violate either the ex post facto clause or due process). Therefore, 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).
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.