Narrative Opinion Summary
An appeal was filed by the defendant, following his guilty plea conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, resulting in a 57-month sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) and 1153. The defendant's counsel, adhering to Anders v. California, submitted a brief to the appellate court indicating no valid grounds for appeal and requested withdrawal from the case. The defendant did not submit any additional arguments on his own behalf. An independent review of the record, as required by Penson v. Ohio, confirmed that the defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal in accordance with the plea agreement, and the appeal waiver was deemed valid under the precedent established in United States v. Nguyen. Furthermore, the court noted that changes in sentencing law, referenced in United States v. Cardenas, did not influence the voluntariness of the waiver. As a result, the appellate court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal, specifying that the decision is unpublished and not citable in future cases, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Counsel Withdrawal under Anders v. Californiasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, indicating no valid grounds for appeal exist, and requested to withdraw, which the court permitted after an independent review.
Reasoning: Following the precedent set in Anders v. California, Haskie's counsel filed a brief indicating there are no valid grounds for appeal and requested to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
Impact of Changes in Sentencing Law on Appeal Waiversubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that changes in sentencing law do not impact the voluntariness of the defendant's appeal waiver.
Reasoning: The court upheld the validity of the appeal waiver as outlined in United States v. Nguyen and reaffirmed that changes in sentencing law, as discussed in United States v. Cardenas, do not affect the voluntariness of the waiver.
Non-Publication of Judicial Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is designated as non-precedential, meaning it cannot be cited in future cases except under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The court notes that this decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Validity of Appeal Waiversubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the waiver of the right to appeal as knowingly and voluntarily made by the defendant in the plea agreement.
Reasoning: Haskie knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement. The court upheld the validity of the appeal waiver as outlined in United States v. Nguyen.