USA V. VICTOR SCHWARTZ, No. 14-30078 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-30078 D.C. No. 9:13-cr-00046-DLC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* VICTOR ANTHONY SCHWARTZ, a.k.a. Victor Anthony Lopez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 29, 2015** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. Victor Anthony Schwartz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and * 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(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Schwartz’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 Schwartz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 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 Schwartz’s conviction. We accordingly affirm his conviction. Schwartz has waived his right to appeal his 120-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2

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.