Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marino VENTERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-10
Citations: 295 F. App'x 477
Docket Number: No. 07-4478-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marino VENTERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 295
Pages: 477–478

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marino VENTERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-4478-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 10, 2008.
Margaret M. Shalley, Fasulo, Shalley & DiMaggio, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.
Glenn Kopp, Assistant United States Attorney (Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction in the District Court. The Court sentenced defendant principally to 70-months' incarceration following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.
Defendant's argument that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal his sentence is without merit. See United States v. Lee, 523 F.3d 104, 106 (2d Cir.2008). During his plea colloquy with Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox, defendant confirmed that (1) he had reviewed, and understood, his plea agreement (2) his counsel had explained it to him "perfectly" and (3) he had signed the agreement. Magistrate Judge Fox specifically inquired as to whether Mr. Ventera understood that the agreement would "restrict ] [defendant's] ability to appeal from or collaterally attack the judgment, conviction, or sentence that might be imposed upon [him]," and Mr. Ventera answered unequivocally, "Yes."
Having determined that defendant waived his right to appeal, we may not consider his other arguments. Defendant's appeal is DISMISSED.