United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Romel Rosalez, Defendant-appellant, 116 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 116 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted June 3, 1997**Decided June 5, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: NORRIS, LEAVY and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Romel Rosalez appeals the 120 month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Rosalez contends that the district court erred by not allowing him a safety valve reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The government asserts that as part of his plea agreement, Rosalez waived his right to appeal any sentence of 120 months or less. We agree.1 

Because the district court imposed a 120 month sentence, Rosalez has waived his right to appeal his sentence, see United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991), and his appeal is

DISMISSED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

 1

We reject Rosalez's assertion that when he waived the right to appeal "any aspect" of any sentence of 120 months or less, he retained the right to appeal the "manner" in which the sentence was determined. This is an unreasonable interpretation of his negotiated plea agreement, which contains a broad waiver of the right to appeal. Moreover, the plea agreement states that the parties did not reach an agreement regarding the safety valve provision, and there is no indication Rosalez reserved the right to appeal the district court's resolution of that issue. See United States v. Johnson, 67 F.3d 200, 202 (9th Cir. 1995) (a waiver of appeal of "any sentence" is most reasonably interpreted as intending to waive appeals arising out of the district court's construction of the laws that actually determine defendant's sentence)

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.