USA V. CHRISTIAN LAFARGO, No. 16-50203 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 29 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50203 D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00429-JAK v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTIAN LAFARGO, a.k.a. Bossy, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Christian Lafargo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 210-month aggregate sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); violent crime in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 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). § 1959(a)(5); and discharging a firearm in furtherance of, and during and in relation to, a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lafargo’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 Lafargo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Lafargo waived his right to appeal his sentence. 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 16-50203

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.