United States v. Medina-Carrasco, No. 13-10397 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. Defendant claims that the district court erred procedurally by failing to state on the record the applicable sentencing guidelines range and erred substantively in calculating the applicable sentencing guidelines range. The court held, however, that defendant was sentenced according to the plea agreement and that his waiver of appellate rights is valid and enforceable. The court rejected defendant's argument that the waiver is unenforceable because the requirement that he be sentenced “in accordance with” the plea agreement is ambiguous, such that his waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and that he was not sentenced “in accordance with” the plea agreement because his aggravated assault conviction was not a conviction for a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel dismissed a sentencing appeal based on a waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement, which precluded a challenge to “any aspect of the defendant’s sentence—including the manner in which the sentence is determined and any sentencing guideline determinations.” The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the requirement that he be sentenced “in accordance with” the plea agreement is ambiguous, and wrote that even if the phrase were susceptible to more than one interpretation, the plea colloquy eliminated any ambiguity. The panel also rejected the defendant’s contention that he was not sentenced “in accordance with” the plea agreement because the district court’s “crime of violence” determination was incorrect. The panel did not reach the merits of the “crime of violence” question, explaining that because the defendant expressly waived his right to challenge sentencing guidelines determinations, a sentence “in accordance with” the plea agreement need not rest on a correct guidelines determination. Judge Friedman dissented because he believes the appellate waiver language is ambiguous rendering it unenforceable, and because the district court plainly erred by applying the crime of violence enhancement. UNITED STATES V. MEDINA-CARRASCO 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 2, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.