Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Leighton DIEHL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-12
Citations: 588 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 13-30287
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Leighton DIEHL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 588
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Leighton DIEHL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30287.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 5, 2014.
Filed Dec. 12, 2014.
Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., .Syrena Case Hargrove, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, Ann Wick, Assistant U.S., USPO-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Manuel Travis Murdoch, Murdoch Law Office, Blackfoot, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Bruce Leighton Diehl appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful' possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Diehl contends that the district court erred by denying his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence. Diehl concedes that he entered an unconditional guilty plea. He, therefore, waived the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Furthermore, contrary to Diehl's contention, the record reflects that his plea was voluntary.
Diehl next contends that the court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence because the court made factual findings to determine Diehl's base offense level in violation' of the Sixth Amendment. This argument fails because the court's factual findings affected neither the statutory maximum sentence nor any mandatory minimum sentence applicable to Diehl's conviction and, therefore, the Sixth Amendment was not violated. See United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906-07 (9th Cir.2014).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.