USA V. LUIS HERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ, No. 11-10197 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-10197 D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02661-FRZ v. MEMORANDUM * LUIS EDUARDO HERNANDEZGONZALEZ, a.k.a. Luis HernandezGonzalez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Luis Eduardo Hernandez-Gonzalez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in * 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). violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss. Hernandez-Gonzalez contends that the district court s failure to sentence him to a term comparable to the term that he would have received had he accepted the government s fast-track plea offer resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity that rendered his sentence unreasonable. Although he concedes that he waived his right to appeal, he contends that the appeal waiver is unenforceable, as the government impermissibly conditioned the award of a third point under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) on his accession to the waiver. Hernandez-Gonzalez acknowledges that we held in United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2009), that the government may condition the award of a third point under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) on the defendant s waiver of the right to appeal, but he argues that Johnson was wrongly decided. We are bound by our precedent, see United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir. 2009), and dismiss the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver, see United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000). DISMISSED. 2 11-10197
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.
