Court Opinion

ID: 9640255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:55.345866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:28.747924
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED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.   22-50279

                  Plaintiff-Appellee,            D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00609-MWF-2

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MANUEL ANGEL LANDEROS-LOPEZ,
AKA Manuel Lopez, AKA Manuel Lopez-
Landeros, AKA Unidentified Male 1,

                  Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                   Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted August 15, 2023**

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

         Manuel Angel Landeros-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute

         *
             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).

OSA129
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846. Pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Landeros-Lopez’s 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 Landeros-Lopez the opportunity to file a

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

been filed.

      The sentence imposed by the district court triggered the appeal waiver,

which bars Landeros-Lopez from challenging his custodial sentence, his

supervised release term, and the conditions of his supervised release. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We therefore dismiss

Landeros-Lopez’s appeal.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.

                                          2                                   22-50279