Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a federal prisoner who appealed his 27-month sentence following a guilty plea for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. The appeal was brought before a jurisdiction exercised under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The appellant challenged the government's adherence to a plea agreement, specifically alleging the government's failure to make a good faith sentencing recommendation and to correct the district court's comments on inconsistencies with other agreements. However, these issues were not raised at the district court level, so the appellate court conducted a review under the plain error standard. The court found no evidence of breach of the plea agreement or plain error, leading to a dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, the appellant had waived his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement, further limiting his grounds for challenge. The decision was designated as not suitable for publication and restricted from citation in future cases, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appeal Waiver in Plea Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A defendant may waive the right to appeal as part of a plea agreement, limiting grounds for appeal.
Reasoning: Alvarez-Briseno does not present any additional challenges to the plea agreement, which included an unconditional appeal waiver.
Government's Obligation Under Plea Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The government is required to adhere to the terms of the plea agreement, including any sentencing recommendations.
Reasoning: The court finds that the government adhered to the plea agreement in its sentencing recommendation and that there is no evidence supporting Alvarez-Briseno’s claims regarding the district court's statements.
Publication and Citation of Judicial Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Certain judicial decisions may not be published or cited in future cases except under specific rules.
Reasoning: This decision is deemed not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Standard of Review for Unpreserved Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews claims not raised at the district court level under a plain error standard.
Reasoning: However, because he did not raise this issue at the district court level, the review is conducted under a plain error standard.