Gomes

MEMORANDUM **

1. Gomes argues that his plea was rendered involuntary because the district court participated in plea negotiations, in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. See United States v. Bruce, 976 F.2d 552, 557-58 (9th Cir.1992). In fact, the district court was not involved at all until Gomes’s change of plea hearing, by which time the agreement had already been negotiated.

2. Gomes also argues that the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by arguing for a sentence that, Gomes claims, was at odds with stipulations in the agreement. The prosecutor stipulated to a particular offense level and criminal history, as well as to a particular sentence—ten years. The prosecutor’s statements to the district court were consistent with these stipulations, as was the sentence the district court imposed. Gomes, therefore, can show neither error nor prejudice. Nor is there any merit to Gomes’s argument *434 that the prosecutor misrepresented his criminal history to the court.

3. Gomes tries to argue that the district court improperly applied the Sentencing Guidelines in calculating his sentence, but we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. See United States v. Anglin, 215 F.3d 1064,…