USA V. EPATI MALAUULU, No. 17-10207 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-10207 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00124-KJM v. MEMORANDUM* EPATI MALAUULU, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Epati Malauulu appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. * 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). §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Malauulu’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Malauulu has filed a “Supplemental Brief for Appointment of Counsel,” which we treat as a pro se supplemental opening brief. No answering brief has been filed. Malauulu 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 the forfeiture order falls outside the scope of the waiver, we affirm as to that issue. We decline to address on direct appeal Malauulu’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Malauulu’s request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 17-10207

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.