United States v. Duane Cree

988 F.2d 123 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Duane CREE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-50060. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 22, 1993. * Decided March 1, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. CR-91-0318-SVW-01; Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. C.D. Cal. AFFIRMED. Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Duane Cree appeals from his sentence, imposed following a guilty plea, for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). Cree contends that (1) the district court erred by ordering that his federal sentence run consecutively to a previously-imposed unrelated state sentence without first considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a); (2) the district court erroneously interpreted the plea agreement to mandate a sentence consecutive to the state sentence; and…