Case ID: f-appx_528/html/0771-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Edward GIBBONS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10218.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 11, 2013.
    
    Filed June 19, 2013.
    William Harry Bryan, III, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Jonell Lee Lucca, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Brian Russo, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Edward Gibbons appeals his convictions following a bench trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(ii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by denying Gibbons’ motion to suppress. This same issue was raised by Gibbons’ co-defendant, Lisa Say-amontry. See United States v. Sayamontry, No. 12-10153, 523 Fed.Appx. 442, 2013 WL 2632188 (9th Cir. June 13, 2013) (unpublished disposition). For the reasons stated in Sayamontry, we hold that the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.