USA V. MICHELLE ESTEVEZ, No. 21-15775 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-15775 D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00294-LEK-2 MEMORANDUM* MICHELLE ESTEVEZ, AKA Tammie Lynn Kalua, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Michelle Estevez appeals from the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate her sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Estevez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no * 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). grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Estevez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed. Our independent review of the briefing and record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses that the certified issue provides no basis for appellate relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013). Contrary to Estevez’s pro se contention, the record demonstrates that her parole on her 1988 state burglary convictions was revoked in August 2002, after she signed a waiver of extradition, and a custodial sentence was imposed as a result of the revocation. We treat Estevez’s argument that the district court erred at sentencing as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file an answering brief is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 21-15775

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.