United States v. Craig Carr

MEMORANDUM

Craig T. Carr appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of sexual exploitation of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 (c)(1) and (c)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The matter is ripe for review. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 771-72 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss the appeal.

Whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir.2009). In his plea agreement, Carr waived “to the full extent of the law” “[a]ny right ... to appeal the sentence” so long as the custodial sentence was “within or below the Sentencing Guidelines range.” This waiver was effective as to the terms of supervised release even if Carr failed to foresee that those terms may have included plethysmograph testing.

Carr argues that the waiver is inapplicable because the sentence was uneonstitu- tional in light of the district court’s failure to consult a psychologist or plethysmogra-phy expert before issuing it and to adequately justify the plethysmograph testing requirement…