
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis BERNAL-ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-10013
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 17, 2017
    William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Amy B. Cleary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Bernal-Arias appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(i), and 846. We dismiss.

Bernal-Arias challenges the district court’s finding that he was not safety valve eligible, as well as the district court’s decision to apply a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. The government contends that the appeal is barred by an appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. We review de novo whether the appeal is barred by a waiver. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 618 (9th Cir. 2012).

The appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement covers Bernal-Arias’s claims, and the record reflects that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, Bernal-Arias argues that the district court vitiated the written waiver at sentencing. This claim fails because the court’s statement regarding Ber-nal-Arias’s right to appeal was qualified. See Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d at 618-20. We also reject Bernal-Arias’s call to ignore the appeal waiver to prevent a “miscarriage of justice.” Even assuming this court recognized such an exception to the enforceability of an appeal waiver, it does not apply here.

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