Unpublished Disposition, 927 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Lloyd William GATES, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Andrew VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 89-50346, 89-50532.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 1991.Decided Feb. 27, 1991.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Central District of California, Nos. CR-88-0929-JGD-1, CR-88-0929-JGD-2; John G. Davies, District Judge, Presiding.
Before GOODWIN, HUG and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Lloyd William Gates appeals his sentence under the Guidelines following his guilty plea to unarmed robbery of two banks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Gates argues that: (1) he should not have been classified as a career offender, (2) he should have received a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and (3) the district court incorrectly believed it could not depart downward from Gates's offense level under the Guidelines.
Andrew Verdugo appeals the denial of his motion to review or correct his sentence. He pleaded guilty to two counts of armed bank robbery and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. Verdugo argues that: (1) he should not have been classified as a career offender, (2) he should have received a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, (3) the court's acceptance of his guilty plea was in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and (4) he should have received a downward departure because of his age. The government argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding excusable neglect for Verdugo's late-filed notice of appeal of the denial of his Rule 35 motion, but that his filing could be construed as a timely appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the applicable law. We reject Gates' argument that the district court incorrectly believed it could not depart downward from Gates' offense level under the Guidelines. Our review of the record satisfies us that the district court properly understood and appropriately considered the Guidelines. Counsel are to be commended for attempting novel approaches to settled legal questions but we must reject their arguments.
The sentencing of Gates and Verdugo met all legal requirements.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3