U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008

United States v. Rodriguez-Morales

United States v. Rodriguez-Morales
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 10, 2008
269 F. App'x 660

Counsel

Earl Allan Hicks, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee., Tracy A. Staab, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

United States v. Rodriguez-Morales

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Rodriguez-Morales appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and being an alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

As an initial matter, the government contends this appeal is barred by the written appeal waiver in Rodriguez-Morales’ plea agreement. This contention is unpersuasive, because the district court advised Rodriguez-Morales at the change of plea hearing that he could appeal his sentence. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2005).

Rodriguez-Morales contends his sentence was unreasonable. We conclude the sentence was not unreasonable in light of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Rodriguez-Morales also raises a variety of contentions relating to the scope and continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). As Rodriguez-Morales concedes in his brief, these contention are foreclosed by existing precedent. See United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d 748, 751 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.