USA V. TOMAS ALVARADO, No. 13-30299 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 27 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-30299 D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00026-SEH-2 v. MEMORANDUM* TOMAS ALVARADO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 18, 2014** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. Tomas Alvarado appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 360-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess controlled substances with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss. * 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). Alvarado s plea agreement contained waivers of his right to appeal the sentence that are applicable here. He contends that the appeal waivers are not enforceable because of statements by the district court at sentencing. The court did not make an unequivocal or unambiguous statement that Alvarado had the right to appeal his sentence and did not create a reasonable expectation that Alvarado had a right to appeal his sentence. Instead, the court told Alvarado that he had waived his right to appeal, and it informed him of his statutory rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(j) and of his right to challenge the validity of the appeal waivers if he believed he had a right to appeal the sentence. Thus, the court s statements did not render the appeal waivers unenforceable. See United States v. Arias-Espinoza, 704 F.3d 616, 617-19 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. AguilarMuniz, 156 F.3d 974, 977-78 (9th Cir. 1998). DISMISSED. 2

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.