Case ID: f-appx_562/html/0559-01.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. Joseph J. VIOLA, a.k.a. Giuseppe Viola, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10091.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 13, 2014.
    Thomas Edward Stevens, Assistant U.S., Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Anne M. Voigts, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael E. Gottfried, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Joseph J. Viola, San Luis, AZ, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joseph J. Viola appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 105-month sentence for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1841. We dismiss.

The government argues that this appeal is barred by the appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. Viola contends that the waiver is unenforceable, asserting that the government breached the plea agreement, primarily by recommending a total offense level that was higher than that indicated in the plea agreement. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir.2009).

The record reflects that the government’s computation of the total offense level was consistent with the calculations in the plea agreement. Viola’s remaining allegations of breach are unavailing because they relate to actions taken by the Probation Office, which was not a party to the plea agreement. Because the appeal waiver applies and is enforceable, we dismiss. See id. at 988.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

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