Garcia-Placentia

United States v. Garcia-Placentia

Good Law
11 F. App'x 758
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 28, 2001No. 98-10137; D.C. No. CR-97-05104-OWWCalifornia533 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*759 Eduardo Garcia-Placentia challenges his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. Garcia-Placentia’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for review and seeking to withdraw as counsel of record. Garcia-Placentia did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Counsel identified two potential issues, neither of which provides an arguable basis for appeal.

First, we reject the contention that Garcia-Placentia’s plea was involuntary because the district court erroneously informed him that the government would recommend a two-level reduction under the safety valve provision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 (1997). After reviewing the record de novo, see United States v. Littlejohn, 224 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2000), we find that although the district court’s statements were incorrect, there is no showing on the record that the district court’s statements affected GarciaPlacentia’s decision to plead guilty or that he would not have pleaded guilty in the…

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.