Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0915-01.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. Joshua ASUNCION, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-10593.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 19, 2005.
    Decided Oct. 24, 2005.
    Pamela A. Martin Fax, Office of the U.S. Attorney Lloyd George, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John S. Rogers, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade.
    
      
      
         The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Asuncion appeals the district court’s decision denying his motion to suppress. We affirm, and deny his request for a limited remand for resentencing.

Counsel for the defendant failed to make a motion to suppress at the time specified by the magistrate judge and, instead, many months later filed a belated request for an extension of time only a few days before the scheduled trial date. Counsel offered no plausible explanation for his failure to comply with the rules. Assuming that the court should have ruled on the merits of the suppression motion, its failure to do so was harmless because it would have been required to deny the motion as a matter of law. See United States v. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620-21 (9th Cir.2000).

Under the terms of his plea agreement, Asuncion waived the right to appeal his sentence. Therefore, he is not entitled to a limited remand for resentencing under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Cortez-Arias, 425 F.3d 547 (2005) (holding that a waiver of the right to appeal bars an Ameline remand).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.