United States v. Jose Arredondo ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 20 2017
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-50078
    
                    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:16-cr-00075-DOC
    
     v.
                                                    MEMORANDUM*
    JOSE ARREDONDO, a.k.a. Jose Guadalupe
    Arredondo,
    
                    Defendant-Appellant.
    
                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Central District of California
                        David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
    
                              Submitted December 18, 2017**
    
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
          Jose Arredondo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
    
    his guilty-plea convictions and 168-month concurrent sentences for distribution of
    
    methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
    
    violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California,
    
    
          *
                 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).
    
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), Arredondo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no
    
    grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have
    
    provided Arredondo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
    
    supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
    
          Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
    
          Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
    
          AFFIRMED.
    
    
    
    
                                              2                                  17-50078
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 17-50078

Filed Date: 12/20/2017

Modified Date: 12/20/2017