Case ID: f-appx_457/html/0684-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Carnet HEREDIA, a.k.a. Luis Carnet, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 3, 2011.
    Ami Sheth, Assistant U.S. Attorney, AUSA-Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Ange-les, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and ' RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Carnet Heredia appeals from the 32-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Carnet Heredia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Carnet Heredia submitted a pro se brief contending that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) failing to adequately address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); (2) considering impermissible factors; and (3) failing to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence.

The record belies Carnet Heredia’s contentions and reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where “the district court listened to [defendant’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range”).

Moreover, our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.