Narrative Opinion Summary
Jose Guadalupe Villareal-Galaviz appeals his guilty plea conviction and 87-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(i), and 846. His attorney, following the Anders v. California standard, filed a brief indicating no grounds for relief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. Villareal-Galaviz was given the chance to submit a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. An independent review of the record, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, found no arguable grounds for relief on appeal. The court granted the counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The disposition is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent except as stated in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anders Brief Submissionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In accordance with Anders v. California, the defense attorney submitted a brief indicating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Reasoning: His attorney, following the Anders v. California standard, filed a brief indicating no grounds for relief and a motion to withdraw as counsel.
Counsel's Motion to Withdrawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the motion of Villareal-Galaviz's counsel to withdraw after determining there were no arguable grounds for appeal.
Reasoning: The court granted the counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Independent Review Under Penson v. Ohiosubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court conducted an independent review of the record, consistent with the procedure outlined in Penson v. Ohio, and found no arguable issues for appeal.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, found no arguable grounds for relief on appeal.
Non-Precedential Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as provided by internal circuit rules.
Reasoning: The disposition is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent except as stated in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pro Se Supplemental Brief Opportunitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant was given the chance to submit a pro se supplemental brief following the counsel's Anders brief but chose not to do so.
Reasoning: Villareal-Galaviz was given the chance to submit a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so.