USA V. RAFAEL QUIROZ, No. 19-10160 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 30 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-10160 D.C. No. 1:99-cr-05060-DAD-1 MEMORANDUM* RAFAEL QUIROZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 26, 2020** Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Rafael Quiroz appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782, for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g), and to set aside forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(e). Pursuant to Anders v. California, * 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). 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Quiroz’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Quiroz has filed pro se supplemental opening and reply briefs, and the government has filed an answering brief. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED. 2 19-10160

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.