United States v. Paul Loisel ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10018
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:16-cr-00058-APG-VCF-1
v.
PAUL DANIEL LOISEL, MEMORANDUM*
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