From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ruelas-Cecena

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 17, 2006
164 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Page 572.

David Paul Flannigan, Esq., USTU--Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nathan D. Leonardo, Esq., Leonardo & Roach, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-00030-DCB.

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.

Jaime Francisco Ruelas-Cecena appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more, but less than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S. C.§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vii).

We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

United States v. Ruelas-Cecena

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 17, 2006
164 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

United States v. Ruelas-Cecena

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Jaime Francisco…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 17, 2006

Citations

164 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2006)