United States v. Herman Rael
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman William RAEL, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Napoleon A. Jones (district judge)
- Outcome
- dismissed — DISMISSED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Thomas (author), Barry G. Silverman, Richard R. Clifton
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50546 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:05-cr-01972-J v. MEMORANDUM * HERMAN WILLIAM RAEL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 11, 2011 ** Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Herman William Rael appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rael’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss the appeal of the sentence in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
2 08-50546