NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           SEP 28 2011

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 10-50280

               Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 3:04-cr-01962-L-1

          v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JUAN PEDRO BARRAZA-LOPEZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                    M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

                         Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011
                               Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Pedro Barraza-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction on two counts

of illegal reentry and one count of escape from federal custody. He also appeals

his 100-month sentence.1 We affirm.



      *
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
      1
       We address the other argument Barraza-Lopez raises on appeal in an
opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition.
      1.     Barraza-Lopez has waived his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)’s 70-

day indictment-to-trial time limit was violated. In the plea agreement, he agreed

not to appeal any rulings other than those the agreement expressly outlined.

Barraza-Lopez did not raise his § 3161(c) claim before the district court, so the

plea agreement of course did not list any ruling on this claim among those

preserved for appeal. Barraza-Lopez therefore waived his right to raise it here.

See United States v. Bynum, 

, 583 (9th Cir. 2004).

      2.     Barraza-Lopez’s 100-month sentence – at the low end of an

unchallenged Guidelines range – was not substantively unreasonable. See United

States v. Carty, 

, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court

discussed all of the mitigating evidence Barraza-Lopez says was improperly

discounted and explained why it accorded greater weight to the aggravating

evidence. There was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burgum, 

, 813 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting a substantive unreasonableness challenge

when the district court’s findings were “rational, clearly explained and closely tied

to the factual record”).

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2