United States v. Hai Van Lo

999 F.2d 545 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Hai Van LO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50022. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 6, 1993. * Decided July 13, 1993. Before TANG, POOLE and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Hai Van Lo appeals his ninety-five-month sentence imposed after a guilty plea to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). Lo contends the district court erroneously calculated his criminal history score by relying in part on a 1991 state conviction which resulted from an invalid guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review de novo the voluntariness of a guilty plea, while we review for clear error the district court's factual findings regarding the prior conviction. United States v. Newman, 912 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.1990). 4 When the government seeks inclusion of a prior conviction for enhancement…