Narrative Opinion Summary
Aurelio Soto-Nevarez appeals his guilty plea conviction and 97-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His attorney has filed a brief under Anders v. California, indicating no grounds for relief, alongside a motion to withdraw as counsel. Soto-Nevarez submitted a pro se supplemental brief. Following an independent review of the record and the supplemental brief, no grounds for relief were found. Consequently, the court grants the motion to withdraw counsel and dismisses the appeal based on the valid appeal waiver in the plea agreement. This decision is not intended for publication and is restricted from citation in the circuit courts, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anders Brief Submissionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Appellant's counsel submitted an Anders brief, indicating no meritorious grounds for appeal and requested to withdraw from the case.
Reasoning: His attorney has filed a brief under Anders v. California, indicating no grounds for relief, alongside a motion to withdraw as counsel.
Appeal Waiver Enforcementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed based on the valid appeal waiver contained within the plea agreement.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court grants the motion to withdraw counsel and dismisses the appeal based on the valid appeal waiver in the plea agreement.
Guilty Plea Conviction and Sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine were upheld following a guilty plea.
Reasoning: Aurelio Soto-Nevarez appeals his guilty plea conviction and 97-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Independent Review of Recordsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court conducted an independent review of the case records and the pro se supplemental brief and found no grounds for relief.
Reasoning: Following an independent review of the record and the supplemental brief, no grounds for relief were found.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not published and cannot be cited in circuit courts as per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: This decision is not intended for publication and is restricted from citation in the circuit courts, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.