USA v. Gerardo Garcia-Antonio, No. 09-10084 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 21, 2012.

Download PDF

FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. APR 11 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS No. 09-10084 D.C. No. 2:08-CR-01208-MHM District of Arizona, Phoenix GERARDO GARCIA-ANTONIO, ORDER Defendant - Appellant. Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges Counsel for appellant has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 8384 (1988), discloses the following potentially arguable issue for direct appeal: Does Garcia-Antonio s prior conviction under California Penal Code section 288(c) qualify as a crime of violence warranting a sixteen-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)? See United States v. Castro, 607 F.3d 566, 567 (9th Cir. 2010), which was filed after briefing was completed. Counsel s motion to withdraw is denied. The Anders brief filed December 21, 2009 is stricken. Counsel may brief any issues deemed appropriate, but in particular shall address the issue identified above. Appellant s replacement opening brief and any supplement to the excerpts of record filed December 23, 2009 are due June 6, 2011; appellee s brief is due July 6, 2011; the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of appellee s brief. The clerk shall serve a copy of this order on appellant personally, as well as on appellee James Knapp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney s Office, Two Renaissance Square, 40 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1200, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408. This panel does not retain jurisdiction over the appeal. 2 09-10084

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.