United States v. Paul Silman
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Andrew SILMAN, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- James S. Hawkins (author), Thomas, Andrew D. Hurwitz
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED MAR 07 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50393 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03879-WQH-1 v. MEMORANDUM * PAUL ANDREW SILMAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 5, 2013 ** Pasadena, California Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Paul Andrew Silman appeals his sentence of 65 months incarceration followed by three years of supervised release. We have jurisdiction * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we need not recount them here.
In his plea agreement, Defendant validly waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182–83 (9th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011). His arguments that the Government breached the plea agreement are meritless. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. United States v. Michlin, 34 F.3d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1994).
DISMISSED.