Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Steve TOLEDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-27
Citations: 146 F. App'x 931
Docket Number: No. 04-10160
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John Steve TOLEDO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 931–932

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John Steve TOLEDO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-10160.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 27, 2005.
Louis A. Braceo, AUSA, USH—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff—Appellee.
Georgia K. McMillen, Esq., Wailuku, HI, for Defendant—Appellant.
Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Steve Toledo appeals his 85-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), and knowing possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
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, — U.S. -, 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.