Narrative Opinion Summary
Ivan Verdusco-Cota appeals his conviction and 60-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(i), and 846. Following the guidelines of Anders v. California, his counsel filed a brief asserting there are no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel. Verdusco-Cota was given the chance to submit a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. An independent review of the record, as per Penson v. Ohio, revealed no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the conviction and sentence. This ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Conspiracy and Possession with Intent to Distribute under 21 U.S.C. Sections 841 and 846subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant was convicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin under the specified U.S.C. sections.
Reasoning: Ivan Verdusco-Cota appeals his conviction and 60-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(i), and 846.
Counsel's Motion to Withdraw under Anders v. Californiasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's counsel filed a brief stating there were no grounds for relief and sought to withdraw from the case, following the protocol established in Anders v. California.
Reasoning: Following the guidelines of Anders v. California, his counsel filed a brief asserting there are no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel.
Independent Review of Record under Penson v. Ohiosubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An independent review of the case record was conducted, as mandated by Penson v. Ohio, which found no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, as per Penson v. Ohio, revealed no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Non-Publication and Precedential Value of Opinionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision in this case is not intended for publication and does not hold precedential value, except as provided by the relevant circuit rule.
Reasoning: This ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.