United States of America v. Victor Nunez Macias

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VICTOR NUNEZ MACIAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-50338
D.C. No. 8:19-cr-00113-DOC-11
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Victor Nunez Macias appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
* 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
FEB 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-50338
738 (1967), Macias’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 have provided
Macias the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental
brief or answering brief has been filed.
Although Macias entered into a plea agreement that contained an appeal
waiver, we decline to enforce the waiver. At sentencing, the district court advised
Macias that he had the right to appeal, and the government did not object. See
United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1995). However, our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --