USA V. JOEL ESPINOZA, No. 16-50381 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-50381 D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00664-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOEL ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 13, 2017** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. Joel Espinoza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his 120-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Espinoza’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for * 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). relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Espinoza has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Espinoza has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the judgment does not accurately reflect the statute of conviction. We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that the conviction is for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to correct the judgment). Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 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.