USA V. DANIEL PARK, No. 14-50200 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 22 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 14-50200 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00564-MWF v. MEMORANDUM* DANIEL PARK, a.k.a. Dane Hamilton, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Daniel Park appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Park’s counsel * 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). 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 Park the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Park waived the right to appeal five specified issues related to 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 any sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal 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 14-50200

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.