United States of America v. Enrique Aguilar Valencia

17-30054Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit20.12.2017

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ENRIQUE AGUILAR VALENCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30054
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00202-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Enrique Aguilar Valencia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 144-month sentence for conspiracy to
distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), and
846; and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
* 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).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-30054
§ 1956(a)(1) and (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Aguilar Valencia’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 construe the
letter submitted by Aguilar Valencia on December 15, 2017, as a pro se
supplemental brief.
Aguilar Valencia waived his 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 dismiss
the appeal. See id. at 988.
To the extent that Aguilar Valencia seeks to raise a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, we decline to address this issue on direct appeal. See United
States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.