USA V. JOSEPH CAMARGO, No. 19-10179 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-10179 D.C. No. 4:11-cr-04021-RCC-DTF-1 v. JOSEPH EDWARD CAMARGO, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Joseph Edward Camargo appeals from the district court’s amended judgment and challenges the 50-year sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing following his jury-trial convictions for second-degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1152; assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of * 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). 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1152; possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and 2 counts of possession and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Camargo’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 Camargo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. We previously affirmed Camargo’s convictions, but remanded for the district court to resentence Camargo. See United States v. Camargo, 738 Fed. App’x 567 (9th Cir. 2018). Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal regarding the sentence imposed upon remand. However, we remand for the district court to correct the judgment in the following respects: (1) reduce the terms of supervised release for Counts 4 (assault resulting in serious bodily injury) and 5 (possession of ammunition by a prohibited person) to 3 years each, which is the statutory maximum for those offenses, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2); see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6), 924(a)(2); (2) with respect to Count 1, change first degree murder to second degree murder; 2 19-10179 and (3) with respect to Count 4, change the statute of conviction from 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) to 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6). Camargo’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to correct the judgment in part. 3 19-10179
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.
