Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by an individual convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1). The appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief, indicating no substantial grounds for appeal and requesting withdrawal. The appellant raised several issues in a supplemental pro se brief, including claims for a minor role adjustment and denial of a third point for acceptance of responsibility, both of which were dismissed. The appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not addressed due to procedural constraints on direct appeals. Additionally, arguments for downward departures due to aberrant behavior and ignorance of drug purity were considered waived, as they were not presented at the district court level. Constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines and 21 U.S.C. § 841 were rejected based on prevailing case law. Following an independent review, the appellate court found no grounds for reversal, granted the counsel's withdrawal request, and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellant's requests for new counsel and oral argument were denied, and the decision remains unpublished under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Acceptance of Responsibility under Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of an additional point for acceptance of responsibility was justified as the appellant did not fully admit to his involvement at arrest.
Reasoning: The denial of a third point for acceptance of responsibility was justified as Uribe did not fully admit to his involvement at arrest and pled guilty mid-trial.
Anders Brief and Counsel Withdrawalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Counsel filed an Anders brief, indicating no meritorious issues for appeal and sought to withdraw from the case.
Reasoning: His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, indicating no meritorious issues for appeal and requesting to withdraw.
Conspiracy and Possession with Intent to Distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was convicted under these statutes for his involvement in a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy.
Reasoning: Jesus Robles Uribe appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1).
Constitutionality of Sentencing Guidelines and 21 U.S.C. § 841subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines and the statute were rejected based on established precedent.
Reasoning: He also claimed the Sentencing Guidelines and 21 U.S.C. § 841 are unconstitutional, but these arguments were rejected based on established case law affirming the constitutionality of the Guidelines and the statute.
Independent Review and Affirmation of Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An independent review of the record found no issues warranting further review, and the district court's judgment was affirmed.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record revealed no issues warranting further review. Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted, and the district court's judgment was affirmed.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims on Direct Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Allegations of ineffective assistance were not considered due to procedural limitations on direct appeals.
Reasoning: Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were not considered due to procedural limitations on direct appeals.
Minor Role Adjustment under Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the denial of a minor role adjustment due to the significant drug quantity and appellant's prior involvement.
Reasoning: The district court's denial of a minor role adjustment was upheld due to the significant drug quantity and Uribe's prior involvement.
Waiver of Downward Departure Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Arguments for downward departures based on aberrant behavior and ignorance of drug purity were waived as they were not raised in the district court.
Reasoning: In his pro se brief, Uribe argued for downward departures based on aberrant behavior and ignorance of drug purity, which were deemed waived as he did not request them in the district court.