USA V. LEONEL MARIN-TORRES, No. 16-30106 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30106 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00386-HZ-1 v. MEMORANDUM* LEONEL MARIN-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2017** Before: FARRIS, CANBY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Leonel Marin-Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his conviction and 51-month sentence for assault of an officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a) and (b). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Marin-Torres’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no * 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). grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Marin-Torres the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. We affirm the judgment of the district court. The district court’s protective order regarding discovery properly protected sensitive personnel information while giving the defense ample access to the necessary information. See United States v. Marin-Torres, 671 Fed.Appx. 468 (9th Cir. 1985). Marin-Torres’s disruptive behavior justified the district court in revoking his self-representation and providing for representation by standby counsel. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35 n.46 (1975). The other contentions offered by the Anders brief provide no basis for overturning the conviction or sentence. Finally, our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED. 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.