USA V. JAE CHUNG, No. 16-50186 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-50186 D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00262-JAK v. MEMORANDUM* JAE HO CHUNG, a.k.a. Jae Chung, a.k.a. Jay Chung, a.k.a. Steve Chung, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 8, 2017** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Jae Ho Chung appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 63-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Chung’s counsel has filed a * 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). brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Chung the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Chung waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his pleas were involuntary. He also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. 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 Chung’s plea or any aspects of the sentence that fall outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-50186

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.