USA V. ISAURO CATALAN, No. 14-10021 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 01 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10021 D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00441-GEB v. MEMORANDUM* ISAURO JAUREGUI CATALAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Isauro Jauregui Catalan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 121-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. 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 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). Catalan’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Catalan filed pro se supplemental briefs, and the government filed an answering brief. Catalan 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. To the extent Catalan argues in his pro se briefs that counsel provided ineffective assistance, we decline to address this issue on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 14-10021

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.