
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory COYLE, a.k.a. Boca, a.k.a. Greg Coyle, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50459.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 22, 2013.
    Amanda Miller Bettinelli, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Matthew Brady Larsen, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory Coyle appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 71-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2118(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Coyle contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to resolve a factual dispute regarding the 1979 conviction described in the presentence report. We review de novo. See United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir.2007). The district court did not violate Rule 32(i)(3)(B) because the factual dispute regarding the 1979 conviction “had no relevance to the district court’s determination of the prison time of his sentence.” Id. at 1179. Coyle’s contention that Rule 32 required the district court to resolve the dispute because the nature of his prior conviction affected his Bureau of Prisons custody designation lacks merit. See id. at 1180 (“Rule 32 does not require the sentencing judge to resolve disputes that affect only the manner and location of service of the sentence, and not the term imposed.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     