From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Llamas-Isasaga

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 17, 2006
163 F. App'x 547 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion


163 Fed.Appx. 547 (9th Cir. 2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Teodoro LLAMAS-ISASAGA, Defendant--Appellant. No. 04-10354. D.C. No. CR-03-00283-KJD. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 17, 2006

Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3) Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HUG, O'SCANNLAIN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Teodoro Llamas-Isasaga appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B)(viii).

Llamas-Isasaga contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it calculated his base offense level and denied his request for a mitigating role adjustment, based on facts not submitted to a jury nor admitted by the defendant. As part of his plea agreement, Llamas-Isasaga waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence. We enforce the appellate waiver, and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005).

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

United States v. Llamas-Isasaga

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 17, 2006
163 F. App'x 547 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

United States v. Llamas-Isasaga

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Teodoro LLAMAS-ISASAGA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 17, 2006

Citations

163 F. App'x 547 (9th Cir. 2006)