9th Circuit dismissed Jesus Celaya's sentencing appeal because he had already signed away his right…
United States v. Celaya
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit dismissed Jesus Celaya's sentencing appeal because he had already signed away his right to appeal as part of his guilty plea agreement.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit dismissed Jesus Celaya's appeal of his 73-month federal drug sentence, finding that Celaya had waived his right to appeal when he signed his plea agreement. The court found the waiver was valid because it clearly covered his appeal and he had knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it in open court. The court also rejected his argument that the sentencing error was serious enough to override the waiver, citing a 2026 Supreme Court ruling that ordinary sentencing guideline mistakes do not qualify as the kind of egregious error that can overcome an appeal waiver.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects criminal defendants who sign plea agreements containing appeal waivers, reminding them that such waivers are generally enforceable and will block later challenges to sentencing guideline calculations. Federal prosecutors and defense attorneys negotiating plea agreements are also affected, as the decision reinforces how broadly these waivers are interpreted.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 16, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 16, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 16, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Jesus Celaya pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing methamphetamine and received a 73-month prison sentence. He then appealed, arguing that the district court failed to adequately explain its decision when it overruled his objections to how his base offense level was calculated under the federal sentencing guidelines. The Ninth Circuit never reached the substance of that argument. Instead, the court focused on whether Celaya had the right to appeal at all. As part of his guilty plea, Celaya had signed an agreement giving up the right to appeal any aspect of his guilty plea, conviction, or sentence, with only two narrow exceptions: if his sentence exceeded the legal maximum, or if the government appealed first. Neither exception applied here. The court found the waiver was enforceable on two grounds. First, the language of the plea agreement clearly covered the type of appeal Celaya was trying to bring. Second, the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made. At his plea hearing, the judge explained to Celaya that he was giving up his right to appeal, and Celaya confirmed on the record that he understood and agreed. Celaya argued that enforcing the waiver would be a miscarriage of justice. The court acknowledged that appeal waivers can sometimes be set aside when enforcing them would produce an egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute, citing a 2026 Supreme Court decision. However, that same Supreme Court ruling specifically said that ordinary mistakes in applying sentencing law do not meet that high standard. Because Celaya's challenge involved a standard sentencing guidelines dispute, the court found no basis to set the waiver aside and dismissed the appeal entirely. The opinion was designated as not for publication and not precedent under Ninth Circuit rules, meaning it does not create binding law for future cases, though it applies the existing legal framework.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-6562 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:21-cr-00225-TLN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JESUS CELAYA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submission Deferred March 16, 2026 Resubmitted July 9, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Jesus Celaya (Celaya) appeals the 73-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of distributing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Celaya maintains that the district court did not adequately explain * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). why it overruled Celaya’s objections to the base offense level calculation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we conclude that Celaya waived his right to appeal the sentence imposed, we dismiss this appeal. “We review de novo whether a defendant waived his right to appeal under a plea agreement.” United States v. Goodall, 21 F.4th 555, 561 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted), as amended. “A waiver of appellate rights is enforceable if (1) the language of the waiver encompasses the defendant’s right to appeal on the grounds raised, and (2) the waiver is knowingly and voluntarily made. . . .” United States v. Sandeen, 105 F.4th 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Celaya agreed “to give up the right to appeal any aspect of the guilty plea, conviction, and the sentence imposed in this case.” The only exceptions were if “(1) the sentence imposed by the District Court exceeds the statutory maximum; and/or (2) the government appeals the sentence in the case.” Because these exceptions did not occur, Celaya’s appeal is covered by the language of the plea agreement. See id. Celaya agreed to the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily. At his change-of-plea hearing, Celaya acknowledged that he had read the plea agreement and understood it. The district court advised Celaya that he was “also waiving [his] right to appeal or to collaterally attack [his] conviction or [his] sentence in 2 24-6562 this matter,” and asked “[d]o you wish to waive those rights, as well?” Celaya responded, “[y]es.” Celaya’s plea agreement is therefore valid and enforceable. See United States v. Wells, 29 F.4th 580, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2022); see also Goodall, 21 F.4th at 561-62 (upholding an appeal waiver using the same disjunctive “conviction or sentence” language). “[A]n agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice—meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.” Hunter v. United States, 146 S.Ct. 1702, 1708 (2026). Celaya’s challenge to his appeal waiver rests on the district court overruling his objections to the sentencing guidelines calculation. However, in Hunter, the Supreme Court specifically excluded “standard-fare errors in misapplying sentencing law” from the kind of errors that may overcome an appeal waiver. See id. at 1713. Thus, we must enforce Celaya’s waiver of his right to appeal the sentence imposed. See id. APPEAL DISMISSED. 3 24-6562
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.