Court Opinion

ID: 4117847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-01-24 01:01:08.597955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:18.560942
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JAN 23 2017
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          No. 15-30358

                   Plaintiff-Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:14-cr-06041-EFS

   v.
                                                    MEMORANDUM*
 BRAULIO BARAJAS-ZARATE,

                   Defendant-Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Washington
                      Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted January 18, 2017**

Before:       TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

        Braulio Barajas-Zarate appeals from the district court’s judgment and

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

conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We dismiss.

        Barajas-Zarate challenges the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief

        *
             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).
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The government contends that this appeal is barred by

a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his

right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011).

The terms of the appeal waiver in Barajas-Zarate’s plea agreement unambiguously

encompass this appeal of his within-Guidelines sentence. See id. at 1205-06.

Contrary to Barajas-Zarate’s contention, the record reflects that he knowingly and

voluntarily waived his right to appeal. We decline to consider on direct appeal

Barajas-Zarate’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the

scope of the waiver. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th

Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628
F.3d at 1207.

      DISMISSED.

                                          2                                   15-30358