Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel AVILEZ-ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-24
Citations: 265 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 06-10582
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel AVILEZ-ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel AVILEZ-ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10582.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2007 .
Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
Lisa Jennis Settel, Esq., USPX—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory A. Bartolomei, Esq., FPDAZ— Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Manuel Avilez-Zamora appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit hostage taking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 1203, and conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(l)(A)(v)(I)(II).
We previously held that Avilez-Zamora's plea agreement waived his right to appeal all aspects of his sentence, except for the court's application of grouping under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Avilez-Zamora, 168 Fed.Appx. 803 (9th Cir.2006) (unpublished decision). Avilez-Zamora does not raise any challenge to grouping in his briefs. Accordingly, the law of this case dictates that the appeal waiver in Avilez-Zamora's plea agreement precludes this current appeal. See id.-, see also Snow-Erlin v. United States, 470 F.3d 804, 807 (2006) (holding that the appellate court does not reconsider matters resolved on a prior appeal).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.