USA V. PAUL LOISEL, No. 18-10018 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 23 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10018 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00058-APG-VCF-1 v. MEMORANDUM* PAUL DANIEL LOISEL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Paul Daniel Loisel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 300-month sentence for five counts of interference with commerce by robbery and one count of discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1851 and 924(c)(1)(A), * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). respectively. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Loisel’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Loisel the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Loisel waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Goodall, 21 F.4th 555 (9th Cir. 2021). However, the waiver is not enforceable as to the restitution order because, at the time of the waiver, Loisel was not provided with any estimate of the restitution amount. See United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2011). As to that order, we affirm because our independent review of the record discloses no arguable grounds for relief concerning restitution. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 18-10018
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
