United States of America v. YAN FU, AKA Sharon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
YAN FU, AKA Sharon,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 23-50032
D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00621-AB-4
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Yan Fu appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-
plea conviction, 20-month sentence, and restitution order for conspiracy to commit
money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h). Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Fu’s counsel has filed a brief stating
* 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
AUG 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-50032
that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. We have provided Fu the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief.
No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Fu waived her right to appeal her conviction, with the exception of an appeal
based on a claim that her plea was involuntary. She also waived the right to appeal
her sentence, with the exception of the court’s restitution order and certain
nonstandard supervised release conditions. 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 the voluntariness of Fu’s plea, the restitution order, and all of the
exempted supervised release conditions. We therefore affirm as to those issues.
We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. 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 --