USA V. SALVADOR JAMAICA-ARELLANO, No. 13-10420 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 31 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-10420 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00075-MCE v. MEMORANDUM* SALVADOR JAMAICA-ARELLANO, a.k.a. Chava, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Salvador Jamaica-Arellano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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), 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Jamaica-Arellano’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 Jamaica-Arellano the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Jamaica-Arellano waived his right to appeal his conviction and 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 988.1 Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 1 This disposition does not affect the district court’s amended order, effective November 1, 2015, which reduced defendant’s sentence from 70 months to 57 months under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 2 13-10420

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.