U.S. v. Hattar

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Seman HATTAR…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 16, 2002

44 F. App'x 259 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

44 Fed.Appx. 259 (9th Cir. 2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Seman HATTAR, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-50116. D.C. No. CR-96-00886-SVW-1. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 16, 2002

Submitted August 12, 2002 ^*.

* 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 Central District of California Steven V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, 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.

Steven Seman Hattar appeals his 262-month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant's attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Hattar has not filed a supplemental pro se brief.

The Anders brief identifies and rejects three potential issues. First, counsel correctly acknowledges that there is no indication that Hattar's guilty plea was involuntary, unknowing, or incompetent. See United States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 976-77 (9th Cir.1998) (discussing district court's compliance with Rule 11); United States v. Vonn, 535U.S. 55, ----, ---- - ----, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1046, 1054-55, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (establishing defendant's burden to show plain error in light of the entire record).

Second, counsel concludes that the government complied with its obligations under the plea agreement, and the record supports this assessment.

Third, counsel raises, and correctly rejects as an issue for appeal, the district court's denial of a downward departure based on Hattar's lack of knowledge or control of the purity of the methamphetamine. That discretionary ruling is unreviewable. See United States v. Lipman, 133 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir.1998).

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) discloses no issues for review. Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is

AFFIRMED.