Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0658-01.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. David Russell FOLEY, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Russell FOLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 14-10055, 14-10056.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 25, 2015.
    Amended April 17, 2015.
    Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Anne M. Voigts, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, MURGUIA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Russell Foley appeals his sentence imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1349. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 949-50 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). We dismiss the appeal because Foley waived his right to appeal his sentence, and that waiver is valid and enforceable.

Foley knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waived his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Spear, 753 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir.2014) (citing United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.2011)). Foley argues that the waiver is invalid because (1) the sentence does not comport with the terms of the plea agreement; and (2) the sentence is illegal. See United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2011). Both arguments fail.

First, the sentence Foley received was below the calculated sentencing guidelines range as determined by the district court and squarely within the specific sentencing terms of the plea agreement. See United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.1991). Second, the sentence was not illegal, because it was below the statutory maximum of 20 years, did not violate the Constitution, and was supported by the judgment of conviction. See United States v. Fowler, 794 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, Foley’s appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.