USA V. EDUARDO RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ, No. 16-10394 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 16-10394 16-10438 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-00168-JGZ 4:12-cr-00269-JGZ v. EDUARDO RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. 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 27month 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 21month 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). 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 RamosRodriguez’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 16-10394 & 16-10438 (2007). Appeal No. 16-10394: AFFIRMED. Appeal No. 16-10438: DISMISSED. 3 16-10394 & 16-10438
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
