United States v. Jamie Rangel

680 F. App'x 635
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 14, 2017
Docket15-10279
StatusUnpublished

This text of 680 F. App'x 635 (United States v. Jamie Rangel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jamie Rangel, 680 F. App'x 635 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

*636 MEMORANDUM **

Jamie Rangel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We dismiss.

Rangel argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for his leadership role in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). 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 Rangel’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal of his low-end Guidelines sentence. See id. at 1205-06. The record belies Ran-gel’s contention that the district court advised him that he had the right to appeal. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court does not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal by stating that defendant “may have a right to appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Harris
628 F.3d 1203 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Eduardo Arias-Espinosa
704 F.3d 616 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
680 F. App'x 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jamie-rangel-ca9-2017.