United States of America v. Ramon Armando Saucedo- Trejo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAMON ARMANDO SAUCEDO-
TREJO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50530
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05423-BEN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 6, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Ramon Armando Saucedo-Trejo argues that despite having
waived his right to appeal his within-Guidelines sentence, he may raise an appeal
FILED
MAR 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 because the government breached the plea
agreement.
We disagree. The government did not breach the express terms of the plea
agreement by asking the court to impose a 16-level “crime of violence”
enhancement based on defendant’s prior conviction. Section X.A of the agreement
establishes that the parties did not agree to make a joint recommendation of a
Specific Offense Characteristic but rather authorized each party to make its own
argument to the court regarding the appropriate enhancement at sentencing. Based
on the contract as a whole and the course of performance between the parties,
Section X.F required the parties to recommend the low end of the advisory
guidelines range at the time of sentencing, not to reach agreement on the elements
of the sentence expressly left open in Section X.A.
Nor did the government act in bad faith by recommending the enhancement
prior to obtaining the change of plea colloquy transcript from state court. Nothing
in the plea agreement prohibited the government from requesting a continuance to
obtain such documents from state court before sentencing.
Because we conclude the plea agreement contains a valid appellate waiver
and the government did not breach the plea agreement, we dismiss the appeal. See
United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815, 817–18 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

DISMISSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --