Opinion ID: 788425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Smith's Right to Appeal His Sentence

Text: 32 Smith argues that the district court erred in applying the preponderance of evidence rather than the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, when it adjusted Smith's sentence up six levels. Because Smith waived any right to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction and sentence, we do not reach this question. 33 We review de novo the question of whether an appellant has waived his right to appeal. United States v. Shimoda, 334 F.3d 846, 848 (9th Cir.2003). Generally, courts will enforce a defendant's waiver of his right to appeal if (1) the language of the waiver encompasses the defendant's right to appeal on the grounds claimed on appeal, and (2) the waiver is `knowingly and voluntarily made.' United States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir.1998) (citations and quotation omitted). 34 Pursuant to the first requirement, we determine whether the agreement, by its terms, waives the right to appeal. United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir.2000). In the plea agreement Smith formed with the government, Smith waived any right to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction and sentence, unless the sentence [exceeded] the high end of the guideline range based on an adjusted offense level of 13. The district court sentenced Smith, based on a total adjusted offense level of 13 and a criminal history category of IV, to custody for a period of 24 months. Because the guideline range for an offense level of 13 and a criminal history category of IV is 24 to 30 months, the district court's sentence fell within the range for which Smith waived his right to appeal. The second requirement for a valid waiver is that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily consent to the agreement's express terms. Id.; (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c) & (d)). The record clearly shows that Smith's waiver of his appellate rights was knowing and voluntary. Therefore, our inquiry into the waiver's validity is at an end; the valid waiver bars [Smith's] ... challenges to his ... sentence and we must dismiss the appeal. United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Michlin, 34 F.3d 896, 898 (9th Cir.1994)).