Court Opinion

ID: 4221671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-17 21:00:40.969032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:50.000358
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              NOV 17 2017

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.    17-10013

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00072-RCJ

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JOSE LUIS BERNAL-ARIAS,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                     Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 15, 2017**

Before:      CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Luis Bernal-Arias appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(i), and 846. We dismiss.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Bernal-Arias challenges the district court’s finding that he was not safety

valve eligible, as well as the district court’s decision to apply a two-level

enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or

distributing a controlled substance. The government contends that the appeal is

barred by an appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. We review de novo

whether the appeal is barred by a waiver. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704

F.3d 616, 618 (9th Cir. 2012).

      The appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement covers Bernal-Arias’s

claims, and the record reflects that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See

United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, Bernal-

Arias argues that the district court vitiated the written waiver at sentencing. This

claim fails because the court’s statement regarding Bernal-Arias’s right to appeal

was qualified. See Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d at 618-20. We also reject Bernal-

Arias’s call to ignore the appeal waiver to prevent a “miscarriage of justice.” Even

assuming this court recognized such an exception to the enforceability of an appeal

waiver, it does not apply here.

      DISMISSED.

                                            2                                   17-10013