USA V. NICOLE LOPEZ, No. 22-30104 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 22-30104 D.C. No. 4:21-cr-00069-BMM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* NICOLE ANN LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Nicole Ann Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a * 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). motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Lopez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed. Lopez waived her right to appeal her 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. We decline to address on direct appeal Lopez’s pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal only in the unusual case where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant her Sixth Amendment right to counsel). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 22-30104

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.