United States v. Fred Hovey, III

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50128 · 2014-05-20 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred Burling HOVEY, III, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Richard R. Clifton (author), Carlos T. Bea, Paul J. Watford

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

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50128 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00624-IEG v. MEMORANDUM* FRED BURLING HOVEY, III, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Fred Hovey appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and the 120-month sentence for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Hovey’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for * 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). relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Hovey has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the appellate waiver in the parties’ plea agreement and has advised the court that it does not intend to file an answering brief.

Hovey has waived the right to appeal his 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, grant the government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2 13-50128