Court Opinion

ID: 4222141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-20 21:00:40.166542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:50.425094
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 20 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Nos. 16-10394
                                                    16-10438
                Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-00168-JGZ
 v.                                                       4:12-cr-00269-JGZ

EDUARDO RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ,                        MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 15, 2017**

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

       In these consolidated appeals, Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez appeals the 27-

month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the partially consecutive 21-

month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. In Appeal No. 16-

      *
             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).
10438, we dismiss. In Appeal No. 16-10394, we affirm.

      Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th

Cir. 2011), we conclude that Appeal No. 16-10438 is barred by a valid appeal

waiver. The terms of the appeal waiver in Ramos-Rodriguez’s disposition

agreement unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. See id.

Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez’s contention, the record reflects that he

waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v.

Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009).

      In Appeal No. 16-10394, Ramos-Rodriguez argues that the district court

procedurally erred by failing to consider his sentencing arguments and explain the

sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record

reflects that the district court considered Ramos-Rodriguez’s arguments and

sufficiently explained the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty,

520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Ramos-

Rodriguez’s contention, the sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

his significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

                                          2                          16-10394 & 16-10438
(2007).

      Appeal No. 16-10394: AFFIRMED.

      Appeal No. 16-10438: DISMISSED.

                                  3     16-10394 & 16-10438