Case ID: f-appx_427/html/0604-01.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-Appellant, v. William Vance TURNER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-50584.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed April 19, 2011.
    Stephen I. Goorvitch, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistants U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Liliana Coronado, Esquire, Gerald Charles Salseda, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandra Wallace Yates, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendantAppellee.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed September 7, 2010 is withdrawn. A new memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 35.

Turner’s petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied.

No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.

MEMORANDUM

William Vance Turner appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 192-month sentence for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Turner contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court led him to believe erroneously that he could appeal the court’s rulings on pre-plea motions. This contention is not supported by the record.

Turner further contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.