Summary
rejecting argument in part because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not exclude non-business days for the purposes of computing time (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) )
Summary of this case from Miller v. Downtown Bid Servs. Corp.Opinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided Nov. 23, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; No. CR-88-0213-RAR, Raul A. Ramirez, District Judge, Presiding.
E.D.Cal.
AFFIRMED.
Before HUG, FLETCHER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
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.
Gilbert Carrasco-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines following his entry of a guilty plea to one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
Counsel for Carrasco-Garcia filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which identified one possible issue for review: whether the district court judge erred in sentencing Carrasco-Garcia to a sentence at the upper end of the Guidelines range when the U.S. Attorney's Office recommended the minimum sentence pursuant to a plea agreement.
The district judge is not bound to follow the prosecutor's recommended sentence and has discretion to sentence within the Guidelines range. See United States v. Pelayo-Bautista, 907 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir.1990). Additionally, the record reflects that the district judge cited "the severity of the crimes," Carrasco-Garcia's "background involving weapons, either guns and/or knives" and his "propensity to commit violence" as factors warranting the sentence. This court's jurisdiction is limited to determining that the sentence imposed by the district court was within the correctly applied Guideline range. Id. at 101. We are satisfied on that score. Beyond that, we have no capacity to review or revise the sentence imposed. After considering the record on appeal, we discern no other possible issue for appeal.
The motion of counsel to withdraw is GRANTED and the judgement and sentence is AFFIRMED.
GRANTED and AFFIRMED.