United States of America v. William Vance Turner

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM VANCE TURNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50584
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00604-MMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
William Vance Turner appeals from the 192-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50584 2
Turner contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because
he was confused as to whether he could appeal the denial of pre-trial motions.
However, on appeal Turner does not seek to challenge the denial of any pre-trial
motions, but rather solely challenges his sentence. Because Turner’s plea
agreement preserves his right to challenge his sentence, his challenge to the
validity of his guilty plea is irrelevant. Moreover, any confusion does not
prejudice Turner on appeal, because he has not challenged any of the trial court’s
pre-trial rulings. Cf. United States v. Cortez, 973 F.2d 764, 767-68 (9th Cir. 1992).
With respect to the challenge to his sentence, Turner contends that the
district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate the significance of abuse
he suffered while in prison and by failing to address his susceptibility to future
abuse. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Finally, contrary to Turner’s contention, the sentence imposed is
substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See id. at 993.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --