Lopez-Morales

United States v. Lopez-Morales

Good Law
9 F. App'x 716
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 25, 2001No. 99-50507; D.C. No. CR-97-00812-SVWCalifornia390 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Irineo Lopez-Morales appeals his conviction for one count of a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . Lopez-Morales’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), identifying one potential issue for review. Lopez-Morales has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising three contentions.

Counsel identifies the potential issue of whether the district court erred by refusing to depart downward on the basis of a disparity of plea bargaining practices between the various district courts in California. This argument is precluded by our decision in United States v. Banuelos-Rodriguez, 215 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc) (holding that disparity in plea bargaining practices is not a proper basis for downward departure).

Lopez-Morales first contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his case because he is a “sovereign Mexican citizen.” This contention is without merit as 18 U.S.C. § 3231 provides that “[t]he district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” As 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.