USA V. AZIZ MAALI, No. 17-50319 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-50319 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00561-SJO v. MEMORANDUM* AZIZ M. MAALI, a.k.a. Ozzi, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Aziz M. Maali appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 12-month-and-one-day sentence for structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), (d)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), * 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). Maali’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 have provided Maali the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Maali waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Maali’s plea. We therefore affirm as to that issue and dismiss the remainder of the appeal of his conviction. Maali also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. We dismiss Maali’s sentencing appeal as to those aspects of his sentence that are covered by the waiver and affirm as to all other issues except as to the three supervised release conditions, standard conditions five, six, and fourteen, which are unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64 (9th Cir. 2018); see also United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (an appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge to a supervised release condition). We remand for the district court to modify these conditions consistent with our opinion in Evans. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED with instructions. 2 17-50319
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.
