Case ID: f-appx_543/html/0624-02.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. Steve Michael KINSELLA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50422.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Ellen Elizabeth Lansden, Assistant U.S., Nancy Spiegel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Steve Michael Kinsella, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Anthony Eaglin, Esquire, Anthony Eag-lin, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steve Michael Kinsella appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Kinsel-la’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Kinsella the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Kinsella 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 five specified issues related to his sentence. 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 as to Kinsella’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waivers. 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.