Opinion
20-50338
02-18-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR NUNEZ MACIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 8:19-cr-00113-DOC-11 David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
BEFORE: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, AND FRIEDLAND, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Victor Nunez Macias appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Macias'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 Macias the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Although Macias entered into a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, we decline to enforce the waiver. At sentencing, the district court advised Macias that he had the right to appeal, and the government did not object. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1995). However, our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.