United States v. David E. Vincent

59 F.3d 177 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. David E. VINCENT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-10769. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 3, 1994. Decided June 19, 1995. 1 Before: PREGERSON, WIGGINS, Circuit Judges, LEW, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 David Vincent appeals the district court's denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion challenging the court's restitution order imposed as part of his sentence for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 . Vincent and his counsel, the Law Offices of Alan Ellis ("Ellis"), appeal the district court's related order directing that the $60,000 fee Vincent paid to Ellis be paid to the victims of Vincent's crime as restitution. 4 The order denying Vincent's Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence is a final order, therefore we have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We affirm. 5 1. Vincent argues…