United States v. Jose Maldonado-Pineda, (Two Cases)

99 F.3d 1147 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MALDONADO-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant. (Two Cases). No. 96-30101, 96-30102. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. * Decided Oct. 15, 1996. Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMOARNDUM ** 2 Jose Maldonado-Pineda appeals his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. 3 We decline to consider Maldonado-Pineda's contention that the government breached the plea agreement by recommending a sentence above the ten-year statutory mandatory minimum because he "failed to raise the breach of the plea agreement in district court." See United States v. Robertson, 52 F.3d 789, 791 (9th Cir.1994). Moreover, the government complied with the clear and unambiguous terms of the plea agreement when it recommended a sentence within the applicable guidelines range. 4 Maldonado-Pineda's contention that he is entitled…