Court Opinion

ID: 903562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-19 20:07:32.50542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:05.152322
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                 JUN 19 2013

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-10218

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00113-JAT-1

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JOHN EDWARD GIBBONS,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 11, 2013**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior
District Judge.***

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
        ***
             The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
      John Edward Gibbons appeals his convictions following a bench trial of

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms

or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

      The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by denying Gibbons’

motion to suppress. This same issue was raised by Gibbons’ co-defendant, Lisa

Sayamontry. See United States v. Sayamontry, No. 12-10153, ___ Fed. Appx. ___,

2013 WL 2632188 (9th Cir. June 13, 2013) (unpublished disposition). For the reasons

stated in Sayamontry, we hold that the district court correctly denied the motion to

suppress.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2