United States v. Ramon Saucedo-Trejo
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Armando SAUCEDO-TREJO, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Jay S. Bybee (author), Sandra S. Ikuta, Carlos T. Bea
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50530 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05423-BEN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* RAMON ARMANDO SAUCEDO- TREJO, Defendant - Appellant.
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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 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 DISMISSED.