USA V. JAMIE RANGEL, No. 15-10279 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-10279 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00117-GEB v. MEMORANDUM* JAMIE RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Jamie Rangel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We dismiss. * 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). Rangel argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for his leadership role in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Rangel’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal of his low-end Guidelines sentence. See id. at 1205-06. The record belies Rangel’s contention that the district court advised him that he had the right to appeal. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court does not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal by stating that defendant “may have a right to appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207. DISMISSED. 2 15-10279

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.