United States of America v. Bruce Leighton Diehl

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRUCE LEIGHTON DIEHL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30287
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00189-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-30287
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 of 2 --