From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Espinoza-Molina

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 22, 2013
543 F. App'x 644 (9th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

Submitted October 15, 2013

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00019-SRB. Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding.

For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX - OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Phoenix, AZ.

SAMUEL ESPINOZA-MOLINA, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Phoenix, AZ.


Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

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

Samuel Espinoza-Molina appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Espinoza-Molina's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Espinoza-Molina has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Espinoza-Molina

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 22, 2013
543 F. App'x 644 (9th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Espinoza-Molina

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL ESPINOZA-MOLINA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 22, 2013

Citations

543 F. App'x 644 (9th Cir. 2013)