Court Opinion

ID: 152090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-03 00:03:30+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:05.608837
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              AUG 02 2010

                                                                        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. 08-10546

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00272-OWW

  v.

FIORINDO CORTESI,                                MEMORANDUM *

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of California
                    Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted July 19, 2010 **

Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

       Fiorindo Cortesi appeals from his bench trial conviction and sentence for

interference with agency function, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(1).

       Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Cortesi’s counsel has

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

          *
             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).
as counsel of record. By order filed October 5, 2009, we have provided Cortesi the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Counsel advises that he has been

unable to locate Cortesi or serve him with this court’s order. 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                                    08-10546