United States of America v. Carla Denine Berry

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
CARLA DENINE BERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50536
D.C. No. 5:06-cr-00075-SGL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Carla Denine Berry appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following
her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371, aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax
returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), and willful filing of a false income tax
FILED
DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50536 2
return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we dismiss.
Berry pleaded guilty pursuant to a written agreement that included an appeal
waiver. She contends that she did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her right to
appeal. This contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Watson, 582
F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the district court’s advisement to
Berry that she had ten days to file a written notice of appeal did not did not
invalidate the waiver provision. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-
918 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v Schuman, 127 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir. 1997);
see also United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1176-77 (9th Cir. 2005) (there
must be evidence at the time of the entry of the plea that the defendant thought he
or she could appeal). Accordingly, we enforce the valid appeal waiver. See
Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.
We reject Berry’s challenge to the supervised release condition ordering
restitution. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3664.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --