U.S. v. Mora

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramone MORA…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 18, 2001

8 F. App'x 673 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

8 Fed.Appx. 673 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramone MORA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-50112. D.C. No. CR 99-00017-RJT. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 18, 2001

Submitted April 9, 2001.^*

* The 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

After entering guilty plea, defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Robert J. Timlin, J., of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence. The Court of Appeals held that express waiver of right to appeal that was contained in plea agreement precluded defendant from arguing on appeal that district court erred in assessing criminal history points under Sentencing Guidelines for his prior convictions.

Appeal dismissed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert J. Timlin, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and RYMER, 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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Ramone Mora appeals the 120-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea conviction on one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We dismiss the appeal.

Mora contends that the district court erred by assessing one criminal history point for his 1998 conviction in California for driving with a suspended license and two points for committing the offense of conviction while on probation for the 1998 conviction. Because we enforce Mora's express waiver in the plea agreement of his right to appeal both the judgment and the sentence, we do not reach the merits of this contention. See United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that a knowing and voluntary appellate waiver in a negotiated plea agreement is enforceable). In any event, we see no plain error. See Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 495-496, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994) ("holding that there is no right under the Constitution to challenge a prior conviction, except on the ground that the conviction was obtained in violation of the right to counsel").

DISMISSED.