United States v. Carlos Heredia-Nieblas

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 12, 2018
Docket17-10341
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Carlos Heredia-Nieblas (United States v. Carlos Heredia-Nieblas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Carlos Heredia-Nieblas, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10341

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00522-SRB

v. MEMORANDUM* CARLOS OMAR HEREDIA-NIEBLAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Omar Heredia-Nieblas appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for conspiracy to

distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii)

and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Heredia-Nieblas’s

* 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). counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Heredia-Nieblas the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Heredia-Nieblas waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(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). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Heredia-Nieblas’s motions to file the supplemental excerpts of record under

seal are GRANTED. The Clerk shall file both volumes of the supplemental

excerpts of record at Docket Entry Nos. 23 and 24, as well as the motions to seal

themselves, under seal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2 17-10341

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Watson
582 F.3d 974 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Carlos Heredia-Nieblas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carlos-heredia-nieblas-ca9-2018.