United States v. Anthony Carl Diblasio

972 F.2d 1344 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Carl DIBLASIO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-50422. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 27, 1992. * Decided Aug. 3, 1992. Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, FARRIS and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Anthony Diblasio appeals his sentence as a career offender under Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), his court-appointed attorney has filed a brief stating that he finds no issues for review. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), discloses that Diblasio's challenge to his sentence is without merit. 3 He argues that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender because his two prior convictions for first degree burglary did not involve violence, and because he served his sentence in a non-penal institution. 4 Federal law…