United States of America v. Ernest Babbini

13-10069Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit30 déc. 2013

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNEST BABBINI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10069
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00364-PGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ernest Babbini appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for conspiracy, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Babbini’s
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a
FILED
DEC 30 2013
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 --

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Babbini filed a pro se supplemental
brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Babbini has waived his right to appeal his 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 Babbini’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and counsel’s legal
representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that
Babbini obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United
States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.”).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
13-10069 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

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