Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie TEICHMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-18
Citations: 472 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 11-10255
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie TEICHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie TEICHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10255.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed April 18, 2012.
Daniel R. Schiess, Assistant U.S., Brian Pugh, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Robert Langford, Independent Counsel, Robert L. Langford & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jamie Teichman appeals from his conviction and from the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Teichman contends that the government breached the plea agreement by acting in bad faith when it opposed his motion to continue sentencing and made false representations at the sentencing hearing. This contention is belied by the record.
Teichman also contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to continue sentencing. The valid and enforceable appeal waiver set forth in the plea agreement precludes our review of this issue. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.