Narrative Opinion Summary
Abraham Oseguera-Cervantes appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, possession of a firearm by a felon, and unlawful reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case after Oseguera-Cervantes's counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, indicating no arguable issues for appeal, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. The court conducted an independent review of the record and found no issues warranting further review. As a result, the court granted the motion to withdraw and affirmed the district court's judgment. The case was decided without oral argument, and the disposition is not precedential and should not be cited except under specific legal doctrines.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: After finding no issues warranting further review, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Reasoning: The court conducted an independent review of the record and found no issues warranting further review. As a result, the court granted the motion to withdraw and affirmed the district court's judgment.
Anders Brief Submissionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defense counsel submitted an Anders brief, asserting there are no arguable issues for appeal, which prompted the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
Reasoning: Oseguera-Cervantes's counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, indicating no arguable issues for appeal, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel.
Independent Review by Appellate Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit conducted an independent review of the case record after the submission of an Anders brief to determine the presence of any issues requiring further review.
Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case after Oseguera-Cervantes's counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, indicating no arguable issues for appeal.
Non-Precedential Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not precedential and should not be cited except under specific legal doctrines.
Reasoning: The case was decided without oral argument, and the disposition is not precedential and should not be cited except under specific legal doctrines.