Court Opinion

ID: 9841237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:01:14.633376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:59.571263
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-50231

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:22-cr-00021-DOC-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY EMMANUEL SAUCEDO,
AKA Lil Popeye,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Anthony Emmanuel Saucedo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Saucedo’s

      *
             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 has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Saucedo the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

      Saucedo waived his right to appeal his sentence except as to non-standard

conditions of supervised release. Our independent review of the record pursuant to

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue concerning the

special supervised release conditions imposed by the district court. Accordingly,

we affirm those conditions. We dismiss the remainder of Saucedo’s appeal of his

sentence in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d

974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                           2                                    22-50231