Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eswin CIFUENTES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-22
Citations: 543 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 12-50359
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eswin CIFUENTES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 622–622

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eswin CIFUENTES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50359.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2013.
Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
Lara Alaine Stingley, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jami Lynn Ferrara, Law Office of Jami L. Ferrara, San Diego, CA, Defendants Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Eswin Cifuentes-Lopez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.
Cifuentes-Lopez contends that the district court failed to give meaningful consideration to ah of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and to his arguments for a variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. He further contends that the court gave too much weight to his criminal history and "violent nature" and that the resulting sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The government submits that the appeal is barred by the waiver in the parties' plea agreement. We review de novo and conclude that the waiver is valid and binding and bars the appeal. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.2007).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.