Court Opinion

ID: 9380943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 18:00:52.044278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.862886
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    21-15775

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00294-LEK-2

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MICHELLE ESTEVEZ, AKA Tammie Lynn
Kalua,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Hawaii
                   Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Michelle Estevez appeals from the district court’s order denying her 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate her sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Estevez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Estevez

has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

      Our independent review of the briefing and record pursuant to Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses that the certified issue provides no basis

for appellate relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013).

Contrary to Estevez’s pro se contention, the record demonstrates that her parole on

her 1988 state burglary convictions was revoked in August 2002, after she signed a

waiver of extradition, and a custodial sentence was imposed as a result of the

revocation.

      We treat Estevez’s argument that the district court erred at sentencing as a

motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied.

See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Appellee’s motion for an

extension of time to file an answering brief is denied as moot.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   21-15775