FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10612
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00362-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JUAN JESUS ARCILA-VILLALPANDO,
a.k.a. Juan Jesus Arcila-Villalp,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jesus Arcila-Villalpando appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss.
Arcila-Villalpando challenges the district court’s imposition of a 16-level
increase to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). 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 Arcila-
Villalpando’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this sentencing appeal.
See id. at 1205-06. Contrary to Arcila-Villalpando’s contention, there was no
implied agreement between the parties that the district court would not make legal
errors in applying the Guidelines. Instead, the agreement explicitly left it to the
court to determine the appropriate guideline adjustment, and Arcila-Villalpando
waived the right to challenge “any aspect” of the resulting sentence, including the
manner in which it was determined. Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid
waiver. See id. at 1207.
We decline to consider on direct appeal Arcila-Villalpando’s claim that
counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the district court’s characterization
of his predicate Colorado burglary conviction. See United States v. Rahman, 642
F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
DISMISSED.
2 15-10612