John M. Jenners pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to commit bank fraud — in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 — counterfeiting, and aiding and abetting counterfeiting — in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 474 and 2. After Jenners’s initial sentencing, the district court vacated his sentence on postconviction review, finding that Jenners received ineffective assistance of counsel. After resentencing, Jenners appealed to this court, and we remanded the case after concluding that the district court improperly relied on disputed facts in Jenners’s presentence investigation report (PSR). Following remand, the district court 1 imposed a sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment. Jenners again appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in calculating his advisory sentence under the Guidelines and that the ultimate sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
I. Background
A. The Underlying Offense
Jenners and his co-conspirator defrauded banks by stealing bank account information from various individuals, including the account holder’s name, bank account number, and the bank routing numbers. Then, Jenners would use this information to create counterfeit checks and securities in false names. Using the illegally obtained bank information, Jenners would also create false identification documents, such as driver’s licenses using various aliases, some of which displayed Jenners’s photograph. Jenners used the counterfeit checks and securities at banks and businesses to obtain money, goods, and services.
Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were notified of the scheme after a store clerk reported a suspicious transaction involving Jenners. On November 21, 2003, officers conducted a search of Jenriers’s residence, which he shared with co-defendant Jessica Egerdahl. Police seized a scanner, a digital camera, a counterfeit North Dakota driver’s license seal, lamination plastic, a Versa Check 2003 computer program box, two CDs (one with images of $100 and $20 bills and the other with templates of various state driver’s licenses), numerous receipts from various businesses that indicated purchases with counterfeit or fraudulent checks, and various pieces of paper bearing account and routing information. The police did not find a computer despite the other evidence indicating its probable use.
B. Sentencing and Procedural Background
Jenners pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit back fraud, counterfeiting, and aiding and abetting. After accepting Jen-ners’s plea, the district court sentenced
*834
Jenners to a term of 108 months’ imprisonment — this sentence was later vacated by the district court on postconviction review because Jenners’s counsel failed to file a direct appeal. Upon resentencing, Jen-ners received the same sentence and appealed to this court. In
United States v. Jenners,
At resentencing following remand, the district court imposed a sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment. In determining Jenners’s advisory sentence, the district court applied enhancements for sophisticated means and possession of device-making equipment. The court calculated Jen-ners’s pre-departure sentencing range to be 51 to 63 months and departed upward after finding that Jenners’s criminal history was understated. 2 Alternatively, the court found that if no departure was warranted that a variance would be appropriate.
Before imposing the 96-month sentence, the district court questioned Jenners to verify that he was aware that his plea agreement surrendered the majority of his appellate rights, except for his right to challenge an upward departure from the Guidelines. Jenners acknowledged waiving most his appellate rights.
II. Discussion
Jenners raises two arguments in this appeal. First, he challenges the application of two enhancements under the Guidelines. Second, he argues that the district court’s decision to impose a sentence higher than his advisory range was unreasonable.
A. Calculation of Guidelines Sentence
First, Jenners challenges the district court’s calculations of his Guidelines sentence, arguing that the court erred in enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(8)(C) and (9)(A).We decline to reach the merits of Jenners’s arguments on this point because we conclude that Jenners waived his right to challenge the calculation of his advisory Guidelines range. In his plea agreement, Jenners waived “any right to appeal any and all motions, defenses, ... and objections ... to [the district court’s] entry of judgment against him and imposition of sentence, including sentencing appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3742.”
Absent a miscarriage of justice, an otherwise valid appeal waiver will foreclose a defendant’s argument that his Guidelines sentence was improperly calculated.
United States v. Mousseau,
II. Departure and Variance
Jenners also challenges the district court’s decision to sentence Jenners to a term in excess of his advisory Guidelines range. The district court justified this higher sentence as either permissible under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 or as a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We agree with the district court and conclude that a variance under § 3553(a) was warranted.
“[T]he [sentencing] court has a range of choice, and ... its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law.”
United States v. Rouillard,
Post Booker, 4 a district court may vary from the otherwise applicable Guidelines range based on several factors including:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed ... (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and- to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; [and] (3) the kinds of sentences available....
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a);
see also United States v. Mosqueda-Estevez,
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jenners to 96 months’ imprisonment. Here, when examining Jenners’s criminal history, the district court was permitted to consider that under the plea agreement, 24 of the 25 counts in the indictment were dismissed.
See United States v. Yahnke,
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Notes
. The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
. Jenners has an extensive criminal history, including more than a dozen convictions. Among the prior offenses listed in his PSR are various forgery and theft charges, fraudulent use of a credit card, mail theft, stolen money orders (although he was not charged for this offense), unauthorized use of personal identi-tying information, conspiracy to commit theft, possession of drug paraphernalia, and the unlawful reproduction of a driver's license. Additionally, Jenners was on probation and was also facing four unspecified charges in Oregon while he was on trial for this offense.
.We decline to consider whether the Government waived its plea-agreement-waiver argument by failing to assert it in Jenners’s initial appeal because Jenners did not address this issue either in his brief or at oral argument.
See United States v. Walrath,
. United States
v.
Booker,