You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Pei Zhi Huang

Citation: 228 F. App'x 731Docket: No. 05-50928

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 19, 2007; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Pei Zhi Huang appeals his guilty plea conviction and a 70-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute MDMA (ecstasy), money laundering, and perjury, violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h), 1621(2). His counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw. No additional briefs were submitted by Huang. Upon independent review of the record, no grounds for relief were found on direct appeal. The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the district court’s judgment. This decision is not to be published and does not set a precedent except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmance of District Court Judgment

Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment after determining no reversible error on the record.

Reasoning: The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Anders Brief and Counsel Withdrawal

Application: The court reviewed and granted defense counsel’s request to withdraw after submission of an Anders brief indicating no grounds for relief.

Reasoning: His counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw.

Appellate Review on Anders Brief Submission

Application: The court conducted an independent review of the record on appeal after an Anders brief, finding no meritorious grounds for relief.

Reasoning: Upon independent review of the record, no grounds for relief were found on direct appeal.

Non-Precedential Disposition under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Application: The opinion is designated as nonprecedential and is not to be published or cited except as provided by local rule.

Reasoning: This decision is not to be published and does not set a precedent except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.