United States v. Barraza-Lopez

659 F.3d 1216, 450 F. App'x 676

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 28, 2011
• Docket: 10-50280
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Juan Pedro Barraza-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction on two counts of illegal reentry and one count of escape from federal custody. He also appeals his 100-month sentence. 1 We affirm.

1. Barraza-Lopez has waived his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)’s 70-day indictment-to-trial time limit was violated. In the plea agreement, he agreed not to appeal any rulings other than those the agreement expressly outlined. Barraza-Lopez did not raise his § 3161(c) claim before the district court, so the plea agreement of course did not list any ruling on this claim among those preserved for appeal. Barraza-Lopez therefore waived his right to raise it here. See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583 (9th Cir.2004).

Barraza-Lopez’s 100-month sentence— at the low end of an unchallenged Guidelines range — was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The district court discussed all of the mitigating evidence Barraza-Lopez says was improperly discounted and explained why it accorded greater weight to the aggravating evidence. There was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burgum, 633 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir.2011) (rejecting a substantive unreasonableness challenge when the district court’s findings were “rational, clearly explained and closely tied to the factual record”).

AFFIRMED.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 . We address the other argument Barraza-Lopez raises on appeal in an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition.