U.S. v. Olivarez Cortinas

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Augustine Olivarez…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 9, 1999

168 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 1999)

Opinion

168 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 1999) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Augustine Olivarez CORTINAS, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel ALCALA-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant. D.C. No. CR 95-5055-OW. Nos. 97-10023, 97-10214 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit February 9, 1999

Submitted January 11, 1999. ²

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

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding.

Before NOONAN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, ³ District Judge.

3 The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The parties are well aware of the facts in the case.

Defendants-Appellants Augustine Olivarez Cortinas (97-10023) and Gabriel Alcala-Espinoza (97-10214) appeal their jury convictions and sentences for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 841(a)(1), and conspiracy to launder money, 8 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) & (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Alcala-Espinoza's counsel has moved to withdraw as counsel of record. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Appellants contend that the government proved at least two conspiracies to manufacture methamphetamine, thereby creating insufficient evidence for the jury's verdict of one conspiracy. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found a single conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)

Appellants next contend that the district court did not correctly determine the quantity and type of methamphetamine involved in this case. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its factual finding of the quantity and type of methamphetamine involved in this case. See United States v. Dudden, 65 F.3d 1461, 1470 (9th Cir.1995).

Appellant Cortinas additionally contends that the Sentencing Guidelines violate Article III and the Fifth Amendment of the Untied States Constitution. These contentions lack merit. See Mistretta v.. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989); United States v. Brady, 895 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir.1990).

In the Anders brief, Alcala-Espinoza argues that the district court erred by admitting records pertaining to Diane Sanchez. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the records. See United States v. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d 990, 994 (9th Cir.1991).

Finally, our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), discloses no further issues for review.

Accordingly, the motion of counsel for Alcala-Espinoza to withdraw is GRANTED, and the judgments are AFFIRMED.