Court Opinion

ID: 9366034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 19:01:07.550561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.949320
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JAN 25 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   21-50235

                Plaintiff-Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:20-cr-02671-LAB-1

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JOSE ROSARIO SEGURA
BALENTIERRA,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                     Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Rosario Segura Balentierra appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and concurrent 182-month sentences for

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on board a vessel, in violation of 46

U.S.C. § 70503; operation of a semi-submersible vessel without nationality, in

      *
             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).
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2285; and aiding and abetting these offenses, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Segura

Balentierra’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 treat Segura

Balentierra’s letter dated November 2, 2022, as his pro se supplemental brief. The

government has not filed an answering brief.

      Segura Balentierra waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal, except as to the custodial sentence and supervised release term imposed

on count four, which exceeds the statutory maximum of 15 years and 3 years,

respectively. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2285, 3583(b)(2); see also Watson, 582 F.3d at 977

(appeal waiver does not bar challenge to an illegal sentence). We vacate that

portion of the judgment and remand solely for the district court to reduce to no

more than 15 years and 3 years, respectively, the custodial sentence and supervised

release term imposed on count four.

      We deny Segura Balentierra’s pro se request for substitution of counsel and

decline to address on direct appeal his pro se claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011)

                                           2                                     21-50235
(ineffective assistance of counsel claims are reviewed on direct appeal only where

the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation is so obviously

inadequate that it denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED with

instructions.

                                          3                                    21-50235