United States of America v. Aziz M. Maali, a.k.a. Ozzi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AZIZ M. MAALI, a.k.a. Ozzi,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50319
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00561-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Aziz M. Maali appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea conviction and 12-month-and-one-day sentence for structuring
transactions to evade reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C.
§ 5324(a)(3), (d)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
* 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
MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50319
Maali’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 Maali the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or
answering brief has been filed.
Maali waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. 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 Maali’s plea. We therefore
affirm as to that issue and dismiss the remainder of the appeal of his conviction.
Maali also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. We
dismiss Maali’s sentencing appeal as to those aspects of his sentence that are
covered by the waiver and affirm as to all other issues except as to the three
supervised release conditions, standard conditions five, six, and fourteen, which
are unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64
(9th Cir. 2018); see also United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (an
appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge to a supervised release
condition). We remand for the district court to modify these conditions consistent
with our opinion in Evans.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED with
instructions.

-- 2 of 2 --