United States v. Luis Sandoval
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Luis Hernandez Sandoval appeals his sentence of 120 months for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. The sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement that included a waiver of appeal, which stated: “Defendant acknowledges that by entering the guilty plea(s) ,,. [he] waives to the full extent of the law” any right to direct appeal of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and any right to collateral attack, “except as it relates to the effectiveness of legal representation.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2010).
Hernandez Sandoval contends that the district court impermissibly referenced his race, ethnicity, or national origin during the sentencing hearing, thereby rendering the sentence unconstitutional and the appeal waiver unenforceable. See United States v. Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he waiver of a right to appeal may be subject to certain exceptions such as ... racial disparity in sentencing among…