Court Opinion

ID: 9642524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:01:29.588308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:49.124006
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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.    23-50032

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00621-AB-4

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
YAN FU, AKA Sharon,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

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

      Yan Fu appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-

plea conviction, 20-month sentence, and restitution order for conspiracy to commit

money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h). Pursuant to

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

      *
             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).
that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Fu the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief.

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

      Fu waived her right to appeal her conviction, with the exception of an appeal

based on a claim that her plea was involuntary. She also waived the right to appeal

her sentence, with the exception of the court’s restitution order and certain

nonstandard supervised release conditions. Our independent review of the record

pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds

for relief as to the voluntariness of Fu’s plea, the restitution order, and all of the

exempted supervised release conditions. We therefore affirm as to those issues.

We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See

United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                            2                                     23-50032