The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-50419•United States of America v. Casey Wayne Wollenzier, a.k.a. Butch, a.k.a. Snap
16-50419Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApr 13, 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CASEY WAYNE WOLLENZIER, a.k.a.
Butch, a.k.a. Snap,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50419
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00207-MWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Casey Wayne Wollenzier appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for possession of an
unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Wollenzier’s counsel has filed a brief stating that
* 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
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 16-50419
there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. We have provided Wollenzier the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental
brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Wollenzier waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of
an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right
to appeal most aspects of his sentence. Our independent review of the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds
for relief as to the voluntariness of Wollenzier’s plea or any aspects of the sentence
that fall outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues.
We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See
United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.