United States v. Luis Heredia , 457 F. App'x 684 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             NOV 03 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-50017
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:91-cr-00563-FMC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    LUIS CARNET HEREDIA, a.k.a. Luis
    Carnet,
    Defendant - Appellant.,
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 25, 2011 **
    Before:        TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Luis Carnet Heredia appeals from the 32-month sentence imposed upon
    revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), Carnet Heredia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Carnet Heredia
    submitted a pro se brief contending that the district court procedurally erred by: (1)
    failing to adequately address the relevant factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
     and
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e); (2) considering impermissible factors; and (3) failing to
    adequately explain the reasons for the sentence.
    The record belies Carnet Heredia’s contentions and reflects that the district
    court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 991-95
    (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 
    600 F.3d 1132
    , 1137 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where “the
    district court listened to [defendant’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the
    criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines
    range”).
    Moreover, our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
    
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct
    appeal.
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     10-50017
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-50017

Citation Numbers: 457 F. App'x 684

Judges: Gould, Rawlinson, Trott

Filed Date: 11/3/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023