United States of America v. Steve Michael Kinsella

12-50422Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit22 oct. 2013

Texte intégral

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVE MICHAEL KINSELLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50422
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01183-DSF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Steve Michael Kinsella appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Kinsella’s counsel has filed
FILED
OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50422 2
a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw
as counsel of record. We have provided Kinsella the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Kinsella 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 five specified issues related to his sentence. 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 Kinsella’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of
the appeal waiver. 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, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.