United States v. Pedro Morales-Cardenas , 404 F. App'x 147 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             NOV 19 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-30120
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00010-LRS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    PEDRO MORALES-CARDENAS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Lonny R. Suko, Chief Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 16, 2010 **
    Before:        TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    Pedro Morales-Cardenas appeals from the district court’s order denying his
    motion, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), to correct the judgment. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    The government contends that the appeal waiver in Morales-Cardenas’ plea
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    agreement precludes our reaching the merits of Morales-Cardenas’ claim on
    appeal. Because Morales-Cardenas challenges the sentence imposed in the written
    judgment as unconstitutional, the appeal waiver does not apply, and we may reach
    the merits. See United States v. Bibler, 
    495 F.3d 621
    , 624 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations
    omitted).
    Morales-Cardenas contends that the district court erred when it declined to
    correct the written judgment to reflect the sentence of nine months imprisonment
    pronounced at the sentencing hearing. This contention fails because the court’s
    oral pronouncement of sentence was ambiguous. Although an unambiguous oral
    pronouncement controls a directly conflicting written judgment, see United States
    v. Munoz-Dela Rosa, 
    495 F.2d 253
    , 256 (9th Cir. 1974) (per curiam), when “the
    oral pronouncement is ambiguous or open to reasonable interpretation . . . , it
    cannot possibly ‘control.’” United States v. O’Brien, 
    789 F.2d 1344
    , 1347 (9th
    Cir. 1986).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       10-30120
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-30120

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 147

Judges: Tashima, Berzon, Clifton

Filed Date: 11/19/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024