United States v. Bruce Diehl , 588 F. App'x 568 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     DEC 12 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                           No. 13-30287
    Plaintiff - Appellee,               D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00189-EJL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    BRUCE LEIGHTON DIEHL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Idaho
    Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 5, 2014**
    Before:          HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Bruce Leighton Diehl appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
    unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1). We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Diehl contends that the district court erred by denying his pre-trial motion to
    suppress evidence. Diehl concedes that he entered an unconditional guilty plea.
    He, therefore, waived the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
    See Tollett v. Henderson, 
    411 U.S. 258
    , 267 (1973). Furthermore, contrary to
    Diehl’s contention, the record reflects that his plea was voluntary.
    Diehl next contends that the court abused its discretion in imposing the
    sentence because the court made factual findings to determine Diehl’s base offense
    level in violation of the Sixth Amendment. This argument fails because the court’s
    factual findings affected neither the statutory maximum sentence nor any mandatory
    minimum sentence applicable to Diehl’s conviction and, therefore, the Sixth
    Amendment was not violated. See United States v. Vallejos, 
    742 F.3d 902
    , 906-07
    (9th Cir. 2014).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   13-30287
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-30287

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 568

Filed Date: 12/12/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023