United States v. Jose Bernal-Arias

702 F. App'x 636
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 2017
Docket17-10013
StatusUnpublished

This text of 702 F. App'x 636 (United States v. Jose Bernal-Arias) 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. Jose Bernal-Arias, 702 F. App'x 636 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Bernal-Arias appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(i), and 846. We dismiss.

Bernal-Arias challenges the district court’s finding that he was not safety valve eligible, as well as the district court’s decision to apply a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. The government contends that the appeal is barred by an appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. We review de novo whether the appeal is barred by a waiver. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 618 (9th Cir. 2012).

The appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement covers Bernal-Arias’s claims, and the record reflects that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, Bernal-Arias argues that the district court vitiated the written waiver at sentencing. This claim fails because the court’s statement regarding Ber-nal-Arias’s right to appeal was qualified. See Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d at 618-20. We also reject Bernal-Arias’s call to ignore the appeal waiver to prevent a “miscarriage of justice.” Even assuming this court recognized such an exception to the enforceability of an appeal waiver, it does not apply here.

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)
702 F. App'x 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-bernal-arias-ca9-2017.