United States v. Casey Wollenzier
This text of United States v. Casey Wollenzier (United States v. Casey Wollenzier) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50419
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00207-MWF
v. MEMORANDUM* CASEY WAYNE WOLLENZIER, a.k.a. Butch, a.k.a. Snap,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Casey Wayne Wollenzier appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for possession of an
unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Wollenzier’s counsel has filed a brief stating that
* 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). there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. We have provided Wollenzier the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental
brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Wollenzier waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of
an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right
to appeal most aspects of his sentence. Our independent review of the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds
for relief as to the voluntariness of Wollenzier’s plea or any aspects of the sentence
that fall outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues.
We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See
United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-50419
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Casey Wollenzier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-casey-wollenzier-ca9-2018.