United States v. Eswin Cifuentes-Lopez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-50359 · 2013-10-22 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eswin CIFUENTES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Procter R. Hug, Jr. (author), William C. Canby, Jr., Joseph J. Farris

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50359 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04336-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* ESWIN CIFUENTES-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 16, 2013** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

Eswin Cifuentes-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.

* 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). Cifuentes-Lopez contends that the district court failed to give meaningful consideration to all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and to his arguments for a variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. He further contends that the court gave too much weight to his criminal history and “violent nature” and that the resulting sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The government submits that the appeal is barred by the waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. We review de novo and conclude that the waiver is valid and binding and bars the appeal. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2007).

DISMISSED.

2 12-50359