United States of America v. Daniel Isaac Meza, a.k.a. Wilbur Daniel Meza

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
DANIEL ISAAC MEZA, a.k.a. Wilbur
Daniel Meza,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30296
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00067-TMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Isaac Meza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea conviction for drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A) and (C), and 846; and international money laundering, in violation
FILED
OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30296 2
of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(B)(i), (ii). We dismiss.
The government argues that this appeal is barred by Meza’s waiver of his
right to appeal his conviction. Meza argues, however, that his plea was not
knowing and voluntary because, at the time of his plea, he did not know what
factual findings the district court would make at sentencing and what sentence it
would impose. We review de novo whether a defendant’s plea was knowing and
voluntary. See United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2001).
Contrary to Meza’s contention, the record reflects that he knowingly and
voluntarily entered into his plea agreement, notwithstanding the fact that it did not
include a specific sentencing term. See United States v. Johnson, 67 F.3d 200,
202-03 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejecting argument that a defendant cannot knowingly
waive an unknown right). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. at 203.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --