FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10008
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:07-CR-00325-DCB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERTO CARRILLO-BASTIDA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Carrillo-Bastida appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry 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 in light of Carrillo-Bastida’s valid
written waiver of his right to appeal.
Carrillo-Bastida contends that the waiver of his right to appeal was not
knowing and voluntary. But the record reflects that it was. See United States v.
Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We follow the rule that a waiver
of the right to appeal is knowing and voluntary where the plea agreement as a
whole was knowingly and voluntarily made.”); see also United States v.
Hernandez, 251 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2001) (“In the absence of a formally
enacted rule, a district court judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent
with federal law, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and local rules of the
district.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); United States v. Garrett,
179 F.3d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (denial of motion for
continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Further, our review of the record indicates that, at the sentencing hearing, the
district court did not mischaracterize its authority to depart from the Guidelines.
We decline to consider arguments raised by Carrillo-Bastida for the first
time in his reply brief. See United States v. Anderson, 472 F.3d 662, 668 (9th Cir.
2006).
DISMISSED.
2 09-10008