United States v. Medina-Carrasco, No. 13-10397 (9th Cir. 2015)Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. Defendant claims that the district court erred procedurally by failing to state on the record the applicable sentencing guidelines range and erred substantively in calculating the applicable sentencing guidelines range. The court held, however, that defendant was sentenced according to the plea agreement and that his waiver of appellate rights is valid and enforceable. The court rejected defendant's argument that the waiver is unenforceable because the requirement that he be sentenced “in accordance with” the plea agreement is ambiguous, such that his waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and that he was not sentenced “in accordance with” the plea agreement because his aggravated assault conviction was not a conviction for a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 2, 2016.