Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonso Gonzalez SARMIENTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-03
Citations: 474 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 10-50324
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonso Gonzalez SARMIENTO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonso Gonzalez SARMIENTO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50324.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 3, 2012.
Aaron Michael May, Assistant U.S., Kerry Creque O’Neill, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kathryn Ann Young, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Alonso Gonzalez Sarmiento appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture, to possess with the intent to distribute, and to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
Sarmiento contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We decline to reach this contention in light of the valid appeal waiver in Sarmiento's plea agreement. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
Sarmiento's contention that the appeal waiver is not enforceable because the government breached the covenant of good faith implicit in the plea agreement and took inconsistent positions is not supported by the record.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.