Case ID: f-appx_463/html/0690-01.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. Felix Octavio PICHARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50006.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
    Edward E. Alon, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Victor Augustus Rodgers, AUSA-Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Barry L. Morris, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendanb-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Felix Octavio Pichardo appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for bank fraud and aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Pichardo’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. A pro se supplemental brief has been filed.

Pichardo waived his right to appeal his sentence. 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), indicates that the appeal waiver is operative. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

With regard to Pichardo’s conviction, our independent review of the record discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal, and we affirm.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.