U.S. v. Arellanes

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul ARELLANES…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 21, 2001

4 F. App'x 435 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

4 Fed.Appx. 435 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul ARELLANES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 98-50381. D.C. No. CR-97-03338-IEG. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 21, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001. ¹

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

Defendant entered guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Irma E. Gonzalez, J., to importation of cocaine and possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, and he appealed 120-month sentence. On defense counsel's motion to withdraw, the Court of Appeals held that decision to deny pre-plea suppression motion of post-arrest statements was unreviewable.

Counsel's motion to withdraw granted, and judgment affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Page 436.

, Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 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.

Raul Arrellanes appeals his guilty plea conviction and 120-month sentence imposed for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Arrellanes' attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for review and seeking to withdraw as counsel of record. Arrellanes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel references the potential issue of whether the district court erred when it denied Arrellanes' pre-plea suppression motion of post-arrest statements. The district court's decision to deny this motion, however, is unreviewable because Arrellanes entered a valid, unconditional guilty plea. United States v. Floyd, 108 F.3d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1997).

Our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no other issues requiring review. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.