Triplett

MEMORANDUM *

Because the plea agreement entered into by Mr. Triplett was sufficiently ambiguous to preclude a finding that he waived his right to appeal the calculation of his sentence, we have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Triplett’s appeal. We affirm the district court’s denial of a downward adjustment for “little or no deliberation.”

I.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Mr. Triplett waived his right to appeal “so long as the Court sentence[d] him within the applicable sentencing guideline range.” By attaching this qualifier, the plea agreement did not unambiguously waive Mr. *749 Triplett’s right to appeal miscalculation of the applicable range. Mr. Triplett could have reasonably thought that he retained his right under the Sentencing Reform Act to appeal a sentence “imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a)(2). See United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir.1990) (looking to what the parties “reasonably understood to be the terms of the agreement”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). See generally United States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir.1998) (enforcing a defendant’s waiver of his…