From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Diamand

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 24, 2005
137 F. App'x 58 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted June 14, 2005.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Michael J. Crowley, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David Zeidel Diamand, San Diego, CA, pro se.

Antonio F. Yoon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

David Zeidel Diamand appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by United States v. Booker, --- U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

United States v. Diamand

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 24, 2005
137 F. App'x 58 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

United States v. Diamand

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Zeidel DIAMAND…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 24, 2005

Citations

137 F. App'x 58 (9th Cir. 2005)