
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Lee OLIVER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30157
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jonathan Lee Oliver appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 100-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957; and structuring, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1). We dismiss.

Oliver contends that the district court procedurally erred in determining that his prior North Dakota state misdemeanor conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer should score a criminal history point under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e). The government argues that this appeal should be dismissed based on the appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011), we dismiss. Oliver’s waiver of “any and all right to directly appeal any aspect of the sentence” unambiguously encompasses the claim he raises on appeal. See id. Contrary to Oliver’s contention, the provision of the plea agreement that authorizes him, under certain circumstances, to collaterally attack his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not permit this direct appeal.

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