USA V. JUAN ACUNA-AGUILAR, No. 19-10067 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-10067 D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00080-GMS-7 v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN CARLOS ACUNA-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Juan Carlos Acuna-Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and concurrent 165-month sentences for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii), and conspiracy to * 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). commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Acuna-Aguilar’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 Acuna-Aguilar the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Acuna-Aguilar 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. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 19-10067

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.