United States v. Espinoza-Romero

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-3260 D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:24-cr-00155-AKB-3 v.

MEMORANDUM*

LEONARDO ESPINOZA-ROMERO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Amanda K. Brailsford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 29, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Leonardo Espinoza-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

*

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).

dismiss.

Espinoza-Romero contends that the district court erred by concluding that he was ineligible for safety valve relief. We do not reach the merits of this claim because, as the government argues, Espinoza-Romero waived his right to appeal this issue. Espinoza-Romero entered into a valid plea agreement in which he waived “any right to appeal [his] sentence,” absent exceptions that do not apply in this case. The record reflects that Espinoza-Romero’s waiver was knowing and voluntary, and Espinoza-Romero does not argue otherwise. We therefore dismiss this appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011) (knowing and voluntary appeal waiver whose language encompasses the right to appeal on the grounds raised is enforceable).

DISMISSED.

2 25-3260