United States of America v. Gregory Coyle, a.k.a. Boca, a.k.a. Greg Coyle

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY COYLE, a.k.a. Boca, a.k.a.
Greg Coyle,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50459
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00298-JFW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Coyle appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
71-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
FILED
MAR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

and we affirm.
Coyle contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to resolve a factual dispute regarding the 1979
conviction described in the presentence report. We review de novo. See United
States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not
violate Rule 32(i)(3)(B) because the factual dispute regarding the 1979 conviction
“had no relevance to the district court’s determination of the prison time of his
sentence.” Id. at 1179. Coyle’s contention that Rule 32 required the district court
to resolve the dispute because the nature of his prior conviction affected his Bureau
of Prisons custody designation lacks merit. See id. at 1180 (“Rule 32 does not
require the sentencing judge to resolve disputes that affect only the manner and
location of service of the sentence, and not the term imposed.”).
AFFIRMED.
11-50459 2

-- 2 of 2 --