United States v. Demouchet

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Demouchet

67 F. App'x 448

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 2003

DocketNo. 01-10449

StatusPublished

This text of 67 F. App'x 448 (United States v. Demouchet) 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. Demouchet, 67 F. App'x 448 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Loretta Demouchet appeals her guilty-plea convictions and concurrent 30-month sentences imposed for two counts of transporting an illegal alien for private financial gain, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii) and (B)(i). Demouchet’s attorney has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Demouchet has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our review of the Anders brief and our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Loretta Demouchet appeals her guilty-plea convictions and concurrent 30-month sentences imposed for two counts of transporting an illegal alien for private financial gain, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii) and (B)(i). Demouchet’s attorney has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Demouchet has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our review of the Anders brief and our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F. App'x 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-demouchet-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack