Narrative Opinion Summary
Victor Hurtado-Cuevas appeals his jury-trial conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, manufacturing methamphetamine, and possession of chemicals intended for methamphetamine production, all in violation of various sections of Title 21 of the U.S. Code. Following the principles established in Anders v. California, Hurtado-Cuevas’ attorney submitted a brief indicating no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel. Hurtado-Cuevas also filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government responded. An independent review of the record, as per Penson v. Ohio, revealed no viable grounds for appeal. Consequently, the motion for counsel to withdraw is granted, and the district court's judgment is affirmed. The decision is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent except as allowed under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of District Court Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: When no viable grounds for appeal are found, the appellate court will affirm the district court's judgment.
Reasoning: Consequently, the motion for counsel to withdraw is granted, and the district court's judgment is affirmed.
Constitutional Right to Counselsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In accordance with Anders v. California, counsel may withdraw from a case if they determine there are no grounds for relief, provided they submit a brief to that effect.
Reasoning: Following the principles established in Anders v. California, Hurtado-Cuevas’ attorney submitted a brief indicating no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel.
Independent Review of the Recordsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Under Penson v. Ohio, an independent review of the record must be conducted to ensure there are no viable grounds for appeal before granting counsel's request to withdraw.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, as per Penson v. Ohio, revealed no viable grounds for appeal.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An unpublished decision does not set a precedent and is governed by specific circuit rules regarding its citation.
Reasoning: The decision is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent except as allowed under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.