USA V. ALEJANDRO GALVAN, No. 16-10513 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 22 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-10513 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00115-TLN v. MEMORANDUM* ALEJANDRO MUNOZ GALVAN, a.k.a. Abel Lemus, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Munoz Galvan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 196-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 * 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). (1967), Galvan’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Galvan has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed. Galvan 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 that Galvan seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 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 16-10513

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.