United States v. Barraza-Lopez , 450 F. App'x 676 ( 2011 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50280
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:04-cr-01962-L-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JUAN PEDRO BARRAZA-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Juan Pedro Barraza-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction on two counts
of illegal reentry and one count of escape from federal custody. He also appeals
his 100-month sentence.1 We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1
We address the other argument Barraza-Lopez raises on appeal in an
opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition.
1. Barraza-Lopez has waived his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)’s 70-
day indictment-to-trial time limit was violated. In the plea agreement, he agreed
not to appeal any rulings other than those the agreement expressly outlined.
Barraza-Lopez did not raise his § 3161(c) claim before the district court, so the
plea agreement of course did not list any ruling on this claim among those
preserved for appeal. Barraza-Lopez therefore waived his right to raise it here.
See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583 (9th Cir. 2004).
2. Barraza-Lopez’s 100-month sentence – at the low end of an
unchallenged Guidelines range – was not substantively unreasonable. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court
discussed all of the mitigating evidence Barraza-Lopez says was improperly
discounted and explained why it accorded greater weight to the aggravating
evidence. There was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burgum, 633
F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting a substantive unreasonableness challenge
when the district court’s findings were “rational, clearly explained and closely tied
to the factual record”).
AFFIRMED.
2