Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alberto SALMERON-OZUNA, a.k.a. Juan Salmeron-Ozuna, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-16
Citations: 597 F. App'x 454
Docket Number: No. 13-10366
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alberto SALMERON-OZUNA, a.k.a. Juan Salmeron-Ozuna, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 454–455

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alberto SALMERON-OZUNA, a.k.a. Juan Salmeron-Ozuna, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10366.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 16, 2015.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kathleen Genevieve Williamson, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Juan Alberto Salmeron-Ozuna appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.
Salmeron-Ozuna contends that the district court committed procedural and. substantive sentencing errors. The government contends that this appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver. Salmeron-Ozuna argues that the appeal waiver cannot be enforced because the waiver is vague and his sentence is not consistent with the plea agreement. We review de novo whether to enforce an appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir.2009). We are unpersuaded that the appeal waiver is ambiguous in light of the clarifying colloquy at the change of plea hearing. Furthermore, Salmeron-Ozuna's sentence is consistent with the plea agreement because his predicate conviction for threatening a federal officer "has as an element the . threatened use of physical force against the person of another." U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), cmt. n. 1 (B)(iii). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.