United States of America v. MICHELLE ESTEVEZ, AKA Tammie Lynn Kalua

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHELLE ESTEVEZ, AKA Tammie Lynn
Kalua,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-15775
D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00294-LEK-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Michelle Estevez appeals from the district court’s order denying her 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate her sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Estevez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no
* 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
MAR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15775
grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Estevez
has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the briefing and record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses that the certified issue provides no basis
for appellate relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013).
Contrary to Estevez’s pro se contention, the record demonstrates that her parole on
her 1988 state burglary convictions was revoked in August 2002, after she signed a
waiver of extradition, and a custodial sentence was imposed as a result of the
revocation.
We treat Estevez’s argument that the district court erred at sentencing as a
motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied.
See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Appellee’s motion for an
extension of time to file an answering brief is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --