United States of America v. Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDUARDO RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 16-10394
16-10438
D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-00168-JGZ
4:12-cr-00269-JGZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez appeals the 27-
month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a
removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the partially consecutive 21-
month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. In Appeal No. 16-
* 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
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-10394 & 16-10438
10438, we dismiss. In Appeal No. 16-10394, we affirm.
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th
Cir. 2011), we conclude that Appeal No. 16-10438 is barred by a valid appeal
waiver. The terms of the appeal waiver in Ramos-Rodriguez’s disposition
agreement unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. See id.
Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez’s contention, the record reflects that he
waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009).
In Appeal No. 16-10394, Ramos-Rodriguez argues that the district court
procedurally erred by failing to consider his sentencing arguments and explain the
sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record
reflects that the district court considered Ramos-Rodriguez’s arguments and
sufficiently explained the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Ramos-
Rodriguez’s contention, the sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
his significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-10394 & 16-10438
(2007).
Appeal No. 16-10394: AFFIRMED.
Appeal No. 16-10438: DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --