Case ID: f-appx_702/html/0645-01.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. Leonel MARIN-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30260
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted November 17, 2017 
    
    Filed November 17, 2017
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carl Andrew Colasurdo, Sarah Y. Vogel, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Leonel Marin-Torres, Pro Se
    Before: FARRIS, CANBY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leonel Marin-Torres appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion to reduce his sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Marin-Torres’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 Marin-Torres the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce Marin-Torres’s sentence because of his extensive record of violence before and after his sentence was imposed. In addition, 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.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.