U.S. v. Cisneros

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Jose…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 22, 2001

11 F. App'x 712 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

11 Fed.Appx. 712 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Jose CISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-10152. D.C. No. CR-99-00107-SOM. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 22, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, 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.

Christopher Jose Cisneros appeals his conviction and life sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Cisneros' 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. Cisneros has filed no supplemental brief.

Counsel references the potential issue of whether the district court erred in denying Cisneros' motion to suppress evidence based on evidence that showed that the government agents did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Cisneros nor probable cause to arrest Cisneros. Because the evidence relied upon by the district court was sufficient to support the detention and arrest of Cisneros, the district court properly denied Cisneros' motion to suppress. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 501, 502, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983).

Our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), revealed that the district court did not comply with the dictate of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1). We nevertheless conclude that the record shows this omission was harmless error. United States v. Davila-Escovedo, 36 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir.1994).

Page 713.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.