USA V. JOHN PENITANI, No. 15-10394 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-10394 D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00653-SOM-1 v. JOHN PENITANI, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-10410 D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00514-SOM-3 v. JOHN PENITANI, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted July 21, 2016** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. John Penitani appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and concurrent 168-month sentences for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine and another count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Penitani’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 Penitani the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Penitani’s convictions. We accordingly affirm his convictions. Penitani has waived his right to appeal his sentences. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 appeals as to his sentences. 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. 3
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.
