United States v. Alvaro Santos-Juateco
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro SANTOS-JUATECO, A.K.A. Roberto Arturo Aca-Juateco, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Mary M. McKeown (author), Richard R. Clifton, Andrew D. Hurwitz
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50387 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00553-GT v. MEMORANDUM* ALVARO SANTOS-JUATECO, a.k.a. Roberto Arturo Aca-Juateco, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Alvaro Santos-Juateco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 34-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for * 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). being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
We dismiss.
Santos-Juateco contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level sentencing enhancement, imposing a term of supervised release, and finding his criminal history not to be over-represented. The government argues that the appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement.
We review de novo whether to enforce an appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2009). Under the terms of the appeal waiver, Santos-Juateco waived any right to appeal his sentence, and we therefore dismiss this appeal. See id. at 986, 988.
DISMISSED.
2 14-50387