
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10282
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 22, 2016
    Ross K. Naughton, USSAC — Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael Bradley Bigelow, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Vargas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; possession with intent to distribute MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We dismiss.

Vargas contends, that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of an alleged overstatement to his criminal history and the disparity between his sentence and that of his codefendant. The government argues that this appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010), we dismiss. Vargas gave up the right to appeal his sentence as long as it did not exceed “the top of the applicable guideline range.” Whether the applicable guideline range is the 195-228 month range calculated by the court at sentencing, or the 181-211 month range calculated in the plea agreement and that Vargas now suggests the court should have used, the appeal waiver bars Vargas’s appeal of his 180-month sentence.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     