USA V. JOSE HERNANDEZ, No. 14-50225 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 11 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50225 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00543-PA-2 v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Serio, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 7, 2016** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. Jose Guadalupe Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hernandez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Hernandez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Hernandez waived his right to appeal his sentence, although he retained the right to appeal some conditions of supervised release. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief regarding the terms and conditions of supervised release. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2

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.