Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel MARIN-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-17
Citations: 702 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: No. 16-30260
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel MARIN-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, CANBY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 702
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.