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)
22-30104•United States of America v. Nicole Ann Lopez
22-30104Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 22, 2022
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NICOLE ANN LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-30104
D.C. No. 4:21-cr-00069-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Nicole Ann Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
her guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1343. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lopez’s
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a
* 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).
FILED
NOV 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 22-30104
motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Lopez has filed a pro se supplemental
brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Lopez waived her right to appeal her conviction and sentence. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss
the appeal. See id. at 988.
We decline to address on direct appeal Lopez’s pro se claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 2011) (holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on
direct appeal only in the unusual case where the record is sufficiently developed or
the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant her
Sixth Amendment right to counsel).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.