
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erick Thomas Red DOG, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30076.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 17, 2011.
    
      Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erick Thomas Red Dog appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We dismiss Red Dog’s appeal.

Red Dog contends that his within-Guideline sentence is substantively unreasonable because it violates the parsimony principle and because it fails to account for his mitigating circumstances. We are precluded from reaching the merits of Red Dog’s claim by a valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 958-59 (9th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

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