that contained an appeal waiver. However, he contends that the government waived the appeal waiver. He is incorrect. Suite also contends that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), means that he is not bound by his appeal waiver. We disagree. Booker did not vitiate the appeal waiver. See United States v. Cortez-Arias, 425 F.3d 547, 547-48 (9th Cir.2005), amending, 415 F.3d 977 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2005). Because Suite knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the entry of judgment and the sentence, and because the sentence was within the terms of the plea agreement, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). DISMISSED. ** This disposition is not
holding that where a criminal defendant has voluntarily and knowingly entered into a plea agreement in which he or she waives the right to appeal the defendant is not entitled to resentencing in light of booker  holding that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily holding that the defendants guilty plea was entered into knowingly voluntarily and intelligently holding prelitigation waiver of jury trial must be made knowingly and voluntarily and courts will indulge in every reasonable presumption against a waiver of that right holding that an appeal waiver is valid if it is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to forgo the right to appeal