United States of America v. EVERARDO AGUILAR HERNANDEZ, AKA Evelardo Aguilar Hernandez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EVERARDO AGUILAR HERNANDEZ,
AKA Evelardo Aguilar Hernandez,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50399
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00571-AB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Everardo Aguilar Hernandez appeals from the district court's judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 36-month sentence for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,
FILED
NOV 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 --

841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Hernandez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,
along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. We have provided Hernandez the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or
answering brief has been filed.
Hernandez waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of
an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right
to appeal his sentence, with the exception of the court’s calculation of his criminal
history category. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the
voluntariness of Hernandez’s plea or the criminal history category calculated by
the court. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the
appeal in light of the valid appeal waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d
974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2

-- 2 of 2 --