Ulibas

MEMORANDUM *

Orlino Ulibas appeals his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to drug possession charges, arguing that he should be allowed to do so because his waiver of appeal was not knowing or voluntary. We disagree, and dismiss the appeal.

The plea agreement does not fail for lack of consideration. Ulibas argues that the government gave up nothing by agreeing not to charge a firearms offense (which he claims lacked evidence to support it) and to dismiss the methamphetamine count that carried a ten year mandatory minimum, replacing it with a superseding information charging a five year mandatory minimum. He submits that in essence the government incorporated drug quantities from the indictment into the plea agreement, as he was actually sentenced to 120 months anyway. We do not agree that the government’s concessions were illusory. See United States v. Franco-Lopez, 312 F.3d 984, 990-91 (9th Cir.2002). Under the terms of the plea agreement, the low end of the applicable guideline range was reduced. In addition, Ulibas could have received a sentence of 70-87 months had he successfully challenged ownership of the methamphetamine found in the bathroom. Although he did…