United States of America v. Jose Prospero Felix Zepeda

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE PROSPERO FELIX ZEPEDA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50558
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-01441-VBF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Prospero Felix Zepeda appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1). We have
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-50558 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss based on the valid appeal
waiver.
Zepeda contends that the district court failed to calculate the advisory
Guidelines’ range correctly and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
We decline to reach this contention in light of the valid appeal waiver in Zepeda’s
plea agreement. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2007).
Zepeda contends his appeal waiver is invalid for several reasons. First, he
contends that the Government breached the plea agreement. This contention is
belied by the record. Second, Zepeda contends that he did not knowingly and
voluntarily waive his right to appeal because he was not adequately informed of
the sentence he faced. The record indicates that the waiver was knowing and
voluntary and that Zepeda was adequately informed. See United States v. Nguyen,
235 F.3d 1179, 1182-84 (9th Cir. 2000).
Finally, Zepeda contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive
his right to appeal because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when
advising him to plead guilty. The record in this case is not sufficiently developed

-- 2 of 3 --

08-50558 3
to evaluate Zepeda’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. See
United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2005).
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --