Opinion ID: 745087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Anteau

Text: 3 Anteau contends that counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate the sentencing guidelines and argue that Anteau's three prior convictions for grand theft were related cases for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). The government argues that Anteau voluntarily waived his right to direct appeal. 4 The validity of a waiver of appellate rights is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 430 (1995). An express waiver of the right to appeal or to collateral attack is valid if it is voluntary and knowing. See id. A waiver of appellate rights is unenforceable if the sentencing court informs the defendant of his right to appeal, see id. at 918, unless there is an immediate objection to the advisement and the judge acknowledges the presence of the waiver, see United States v. Littlefield, 105 F.3d 527, 529 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 2423 (1997) (Hall, J. concurring). 5 Here, the district court advised Anteau of his right to appeal at the sentencing hearing. The government immediately reminded the judge that there was a waiver of appeal. Upon hearing the objection, the sentencing judge reminded Anteau that he had given up his right to appeal via the plea agreement. See Littlefield, 105 F.3d at 529; Buchanan, 59 F.3d at 918. Anteau concedes that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, Anteau's waiver is enforceable and we dismiss this appeal. 1 See Buchanan, 59 F.3d at 917.