United States of America v. Julio Gutierrez

11-50559Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit21 feb 2013

Testo completo

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JULIO GUTIERREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50559
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00467-JFW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Julio Gutierrez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for aiding and abetting the
distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C.
FILED
FEB 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50559 2
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Gutierrez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for
relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided
Gutierrez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Gutierrez 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 Gutierrez’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, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.