United States v. Tuikolongahau

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 12, 2024
• Docket: 23-673
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 12 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-673 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:22-cr-00111-HG-1 v. MEMORANDUM* SAMUELA TUIKOLONGAHAU, Jr., AKA Samuela Latu Tuikolongahau, Jr., AKA Samu,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 10, 2024 ** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: CALLAHAN, HURWITZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Samuela Tuikolongahau pleaded guilty to seven counts of bank fraud in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and four counts of aggravated identity theft in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. In his plea agreement, he expressly waived the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). right to appeal “any sentence within the Guidelines range as determined by the

Court at the time of sentencing” and “the manner in which the sentence . . . was

determined, on any ground whatsoever.” The district court determined that the

Guidelines range for the bank fraud counts was 30 to 37 months and imposed

concurrent 37-month terms of imprisonment on each. It then imposed concurrent

terms of two years on three of the identity fraud counts, to be served consecutively

to the bank fraud sentence, and a two-year term on the remaining identity fraud

count, to be served consecutively to all other sentences. See 18 U.S.C. §§

1028A(b)(2), (4).

Tuikolongahau’s total sentence of incarceration, 85 months, is within the

Guidelines range determined by the district court. In any event, Tuikolongahau

does not discuss, let alone attack the validity of, the appeal waiver in his plea

agreement. We therefore dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d

956, 959 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Because [the defendant’s] waiver of appeal in his signed

plea agreement is unambiguous, and because he waived the issue whether it was

knowingly and voluntarily made, we must dismiss his appeal.”).

DISMISSED.

2 23-673