Court Opinion

ID: 206277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-09 01:03:46+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:44.623063
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 08 2011

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-10370

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00544-GMS

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
GEORGE VILLAREAL, a.k.a. George
Fohrenkam,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 15, 2011 **

Before:        CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       George Villareal appeals from the district court’s order granting in part and

denying in part his motion to be sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and

declare the mandatory minimum sentence in 18 U.S.C. § 3559(f) unconstitutional.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Villareal’s counsel has filed

a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a

pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has

been filed.

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

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

      Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    09-10370