From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Carnales-Estrada

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 23, 2002
25 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2002)

Summary

refusing to entertain a Section 2241 petition where Petitioner claimed that Section 2255 was inadequate because he was barred by AEDPA's one year statute from filing a Section 2255 motion even though Petitioner was contending that the District Court that convicted him lacked subject matter jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Caldwell v. Wilson

Opinion


25 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir. 2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo CARNALES-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-30178. D.C. No. CR-99-00662-RSL. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 23, 2002

Submitted Jan. 14, 2002.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KLEINFELD, HAWKINS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Alfredo Carnales-Estrada appeals the 29-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no issue for appeal.

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to withdraw as counsel of record for appellant and the district court's judgment is

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Carnales-Estrada

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 23, 2002
25 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2002)

refusing to entertain a Section 2241 petition where Petitioner claimed that Section 2255 was inadequate because he was barred by AEDPA's one year statute from filing a Section 2255 motion even though Petitioner was contending that the District Court that convicted him lacked subject matter jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Caldwell v. Wilson
Case details for

U.S. v. Carnales-Estrada

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo CARNALES-ESTRADA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 23, 2002

Citations

25 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2002)

Citing Cases

Caldwell v. Wilson

Secondly, Petitioner has cited no authority for the proposition that AEDPA's statute of limitations does not…