Huerto-Carrillo
Huerto-Carrillo v. United States
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*117 MEMORANDUM **
Abel Huerto-Carrillo appeals the district court’s denial as untimely of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Span, 75 F.3d 1383, 1386 (9th Cir.1996).
Huerto-Carrillo contends that his habeas petition is timely because the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 467 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is a retroactive new rule, and the one-year statute of limitations began to run from the day of the Apprendi decision. The Government asserts that Huerto-Carrillo expressly waived any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence in his plea agreement. It is well-established that a knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal is enforceable. United States v. NavarroBotello, 912 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir.1990). Huerto-Carrillo does not challenge the knowing and voluntary nature of his waiver of appeal, and our review of the record shows that his waiver of appeal is valid; accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.