
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodriguez MADDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10432.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 11, 2015.
    
    Filed June 19, 2015.
    Susan Cushman, Assistant U.S., USH-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, Michael Anthony Humphreys, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rodriguez Madden, Pahrump, NV, pro se.
    Michael Ryan Pandullo, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEABRIGHT, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable J. Michael Seabright, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodriguez Madden (“Madden”) appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 92-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.Ci § 2113(a) and (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and dismiss the appeal.

Madden argues that in calculating the Guideline range and sentencing him at its low end, the district court improperly included a two-level enhancement for obstruction and excluded a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Madden waived the right to appeal on this basis. See United States v. Spear, 753 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir.2014). Specifically, the plea agreement includes an explicit waiver of Madden’s “right to appeal any sentence imposed within or below the applicable Sentencing Guideline range as determined by the Court,” which plainly means that Madden waives the right to appeal the district court’s determination of the Guidelines range. Further, Madden “does not contend that his waiver was unknowing or involuntary.” See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir.2011). And even if Madden had raised this argument on appeal, we would conclude that this waiver was knowing and voluntary — during his change of plea, Madden affirmed that he read the plea agreement and reviewed it with his counsel, that his counsel answered all of his questions, and that he understood that he was giving up his right to appeal any sentence imposed within or below the applicable Guideline range as determined by the district court. These procedures are sufficient to find a knowing and voluntary waiver. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     