United States v. Aureliano Navarro-Amavizca

MEMORANDUM **

Aureliano Navarro-Amavizca appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 121-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(ii).. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Navarro-Amavizca’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Navarro-Amavizca has filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed an answering brief.

Navarro-Amavizca has waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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). Navarro-Amavizca contends that the district court failed to provide the advisements required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11. Because Navarro-Amavizca did not object to the adequacy of the plea colloquy before the district court, we review…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10402

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:11-cr-02325-JGZ

v.

MEMORANDUM*

AURELIANO NAVARRO-AMAVIZCA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2015**

Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Aureliano Navarro-Amavizca appeals from the district court's judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 121-month sentence for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. yy 846,

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

* 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). Navarro-Amavizca's counsel has…

concurring.

Compelled by United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294 (9th Cir.2013), I concur in the dismissal of Navarro-Amavizea’s appeal. See also United States v. Black, 750 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.2014) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from' denial of r’hrg en banc, Kozinski, *608 J., joining). I join in inflicting a manifest and outrageous injustice on Navarro-Amavizca, as we in the judicial branch are now doing to others similarly situated. In addition, we are doing great damage to ourselves.

The fictions that make up the facts of this case and those of Black came from the same cookie cutter. Similar to Black, we have an informant who solicited Navarro-Amavizca’s co-defendant, Cota-Ruiz, who in turn recruited Navarro-Amavizca and two others to participate in the mental activity of agreeing to rob fictitious individuals at a fictitious drug house.

For a typical willful crime, it takes a person with a certain disposition who finds the right opportunity. We know that there are people among us who may be disposed to commit crimes. We, as a society, therefore are willing to spend billions of dollars to deny such persons the opportunity to commit crimes. Thus, we have locks, alarm systems,…