United States of America v. Jamie Rangel

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMIE RANGEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10279
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00117-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jamie Rangel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We dismiss.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-10279
Rangel argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level
enhancement for his leadership role in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The
government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We
review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United
States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal
waiver in Rangel’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal of his
low-end Guidelines sentence. See id. at 1205-06. The record belies Rangel’s
contention that the district court advised him that he had the right to appeal. See
United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court
does not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal by stating that defendant
“may have a right to appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid
waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --