USA V. JESUS BALLESTEROS-YANEZ, No. 17-10381 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 12 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 17-10381 17-10382 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:10-cr-03153-DCB 4:17-cr-00701-DCB v. JESUS HUMBERTO BALLESTEROSYANEZ, a.k.a. Humberto BallesterosYanez, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Humberto Ballesteros-Yanez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, 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), (b)(1)(D), and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ballesteros-Yanez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We construe the letter submitted by Ballesteros-Yanez on May 21, 2018, as a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed. Ballesteros-Yanez waived his right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss these appeals. See id. at 988. We decline to address on direct appeal Ballesteros-Yanez’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 17-10381 & 17-10382

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.