Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0332-01.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. Kevin Darnell MILES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30004.
    United States Court of Appeals,, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 5, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 12, 2016.
    Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00008-WFN-28.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges and BURNS, 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 Larry A. Bums, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kevin Miles challenges the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiring to distribute ox-ycodone-based pills in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Miles’ appeal is barred by the waiver of appeal provision in his plea agreement. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.2007). The illegal sentence exception does not apply because Miles’ due process contention lacks merit. His argument that the district court violated his rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), fails because the district court’s drug quantity findings didn’t affect the statutory maximum sentence nor, subject him to a mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906-07 (9th Cir.2014).

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