United States of America v. Luis Carnet Heredia, a.k.a. Luis Carnet

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
LUIS CARNET HEREDIA, a.k.a. Luis
Carnet,
Defendant - Appellant.,
No. 10-50017
D.C. No. 2:91-cr-00563-FMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Luis Carnet Heredia appeals from the 32-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Carnet Heredia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for
FILED
NOV 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50017 2
relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Carnet Heredia
submitted a pro se brief contending that the district court procedurally erred by: (1)
failing to adequately address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); (2) considering impermissible factors; and (3) failing to
adequately explain the reasons for the sentence.
The record belies Carnet Heredia’s contentions and reflects that the district
court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d
1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where “the
district court listened to [defendant’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the
criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines
range”).
Moreover, our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct
appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --