United States of America v. Hector Ojeda Barraza, a.k.a. Lionel Barraza-Barraza, a.k.a. Victor Leon

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HECTOR OJEDA BARRAZA, a.k.a.
Lionel Barraza-Barraza, a.k.a. Victor
Leon,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10345
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00562-EJG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hector Ojeda Barraza appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 216-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10345 2
base, methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846;
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1);
unlawful use of a communication facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b); and
being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
We dismiss.
After his change of plea hearing, Ojeda Barraza agreed to waive his right to
appeal his sentence. He contends that his appeal waiver is unenforceable, however,
because the district court did not personally address him during the sentencing
hearing to determine whether his waiver was knowing and voluntary. We review
for plain error, see United States v. Arellano-Gallegos, 387 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.
2004), and find none. Even if the court had an obligation to canvass Ojeda Barraza
as to his understanding of the waiver during the sentencing hearing, the court’s
failure to do so did not affect Ojeda Barranza’s substantial rights because the
record reflects that his waiver of appeal was knowing and voluntary. See United
States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). We accordingly dismiss the
appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --