Court Opinion

ID: 9642526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:01:30.95967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:57.551585
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    23-10020

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:03-cr-00717-DCB-JR-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
LEONEL ERNESTO VILLASENOR,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Leonel Ernesto Villasenor appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Villasenor’s counsel has filed a brief

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

      *
             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).
counsel of record. We have provided Villasenor 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief. See United States v. Aruda,

993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (setting forth abuse of discretion standard for

sentence reduction decisions under § 3582(c)(1)).

         Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

         AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   23-10020