22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T509,MEMORANDUM Braulio Barajas-Zarate appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . We dismiss. Barajas-Zarate challenges the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f). The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Barajas-Zarate’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal of his within-Guidelines sentence. See id. at 1205-06 . Contrary to Barajas-Zarate’s contention, the record reflects that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. We decline to consider on direct appeal Barajas-Zarate’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257 , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207 . DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T536,

MEMORANDUM

Braulio Barajas-Zarate appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . We dismiss.

Barajas-Zarate challenges the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f). The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Barajas-Zarate’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal of his within-Guidelines sentence. See id. at 1205-06 . Contrary to Barajas-Zarate’s contention, the record reflects that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. We decline to consider on direct appeal Barajas-Zarate’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257 , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207 .

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.