Espinoza-Nunez

United States v. Espinoza-Nunez

Good Law
180 F. App'x 764
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 2006No. 05-50509California223 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Isidro Espinoza-Nunez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 288-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a semi-automatic assault weapon in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(l)(B)(I).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Espinoza-Nunez has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that Espinoza-Nunez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The appeal 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.