NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 16-10394
16-10438
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-00168-JGZ
v. 4:12-cr-00269-JGZ
EDUARDO RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Eduardo Ramos-Rodriguez appeals the 27-
month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a
removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the partially consecutive 21-
month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. In Appeal No. 16-
*
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).
10438, we dismiss. In Appeal No. 16-10394, we affirm.
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th
Cir. 2011), we conclude that Appeal No. 16-10438 is barred by a valid appeal
waiver. The terms of the appeal waiver in Ramos-Rodriguez’s disposition
agreement unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. See id.
Moreover, contrary to Ramos-Rodriguez’s contention, the record reflects that he
waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009).
In Appeal No. 16-10394, Ramos-Rodriguez argues that the district court
procedurally erred by failing to consider his sentencing arguments and explain the
sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record
reflects that the district court considered Ramos-Rodriguez’s arguments and
sufficiently explained the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Ramos-
Rodriguez’s contention, the sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
his significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
2 16-10394 & 16-10438
(2007).
Appeal No. 16-10394: AFFIRMED.
Appeal No. 16-10438: DISMISSED.
3 16-10394 & 16-10438