The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-50444•United States of America v. David Shumilo, a.k.a. Russian Boy
13-50444Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 22, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID SHUMILO, a.k.a. Russian Boy,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50444
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00939-GW-51
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 30, 2014**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
David Shumilo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea conviction and 131-month sentence for a racketeer influenced and
corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug trafficking
FILED
DEC 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), Shumilo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no
grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have
provided Shumilo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Shumilo has waived his right to appeal his conviction and 131-month
sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the
appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974,
986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.