USA V. LUIS CRUZ-GALVAN, No. 15-10227 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-10227 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-01709-GMS v. MEMORANDUM* LUIS ARMANDO CRUZ-GALVAN, a.k.a. Armando, a.k.a. Luis Armando Cruz, a.k.a. Panda, a.k.a. Kung Fu Panda, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Luis Armando Cruz-Galvan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 121-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii), and 846, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Cruz-Galvan’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Cruz-Galvan has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed. Cruz-Galvan waived his right to appeal his conviction, sentence, and the order of forfeiture. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 15-10227

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.