
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carla Denine BERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50536.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
    Charles E. Pell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Antoine F. Raphael, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Myra Mossman, Esquire, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carla Denine Berry appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), and willful filing of a false income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.

Berry pleaded guilty pursuant to a written agreement that included an appeal waiver. She contends that she did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her right to appeal. This contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir.2009). Moreover, the district court’s advisement to Berry that she had ten days to file a written notice of appeal did not did not invalidate the waiver provision. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-918 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir.1997); see also United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1176-77 (9th Cir.2005) (there must be evidence at the time of the entry of the plea that the defendant thought he or she could appeal). Accordingly, we enforce the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.

We reject Berry’s challenge to the supervised release condition ordering restitution. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3664.

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