Narrative Opinion Summary
David John Arevalo appeals his guilty plea conviction and six-month sentence for making a false statement in a passport application, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542. Arevalo's counsel submitted a brief under Anders v. California, asserting no grounds for relief, and filed a motion to withdraw. Arevalo was given the chance to submit a pro se brief but did not do so. An independent review of the record, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, revealed no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the conviction. The disposition is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anders Brief Submissionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Arevalo's counsel submitted an Anders brief, indicating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, and requested to withdraw from the case.
Reasoning: Arevalo's counsel submitted a brief under Anders v. California, asserting no grounds for relief, and filed a motion to withdraw.
Counsel's Motion to Withdrawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court approved the motion for Arevalo's counsel to withdraw after determining there were no substantial grounds for appeal.
Reasoning: The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the conviction.
Guilty Plea Conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1542subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant, David John Arevalo, entered a guilty plea for making a false statement in a passport application, resulting in a six-month sentence.
Reasoning: David John Arevalo appeals his guilty plea conviction and six-month sentence for making a false statement in a passport application, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542.
Independent Review of Record under Penson v. Ohiosubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An independent review of the record, as mandated by Penson v. Ohio, found no valid grounds for relief upon direct appeal.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, revealed no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Non-Publication and Precedent Limitationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's disposition is not intended for publication and does not establish precedent, except as specified in the Ninth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: The disposition is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pro Se Brief Opportunitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant, Arevalo, was provided the opportunity to submit a pro se brief but chose not to do so.
Reasoning: Arevalo was given the chance to submit a pro se brief but did not do so.