Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Mark GEBERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-22
Citations: 513 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 11-10455
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Mark GEBERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Mark GEBERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10455.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 22, 2013.
Michael Chu, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Robert Lawrence Ell-man, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Todd M. Leventhal, Esquire, Special Counsel, Leventhal and Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Curtis Mark Gebers, Jr., appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the $889,415.71 restitution order imposed as part of his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to appear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). We dismiss.
Gebers contends that the district court abused its discretion when it ordered $889,415.71 in restitution without explaining adequately its reasoning and methodology. He also contends that the district court erroneously included losses that were not attributable to his conduct. Ge-bers acknowledges that he waived the right to appeal the restitution order, but he argues that the waiver was not knowing because he lacked sufficient notice of the amount of restitution to be ordered. 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).
Contrary to Gebers's contention, his plea agreement specified a maximum amount of restitution to be ordered, and the court imposed restitution in that amount. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Blitz, 151 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir.1998).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.