United States v. Espinoza-Molina
This text of 543 F. App'x 644 (United States v. Espinoza-Molina) 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
MEMORANDUM
Samuel Espinoza-Molina appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Espinoza-Molina’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Espinoza-Molina has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
543 F. App'x 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-espinoza-molina-ca9-2013.