USA V. DAVID MANUEL, No. 16-50459 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-50459 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00099-DSF v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID GLENN MANUEL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. David Glenn Manuel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for assault on a federal officer or employee resulting in the infliction of bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), * 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). Manuel’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 Manuel the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Manuel waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was 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 the voluntariness of Manuel’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 16-50459

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.