United States of America v. Mark Joseph Botta

13-50539Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit28 de jul. de 2015

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK JOSEPH BOTTA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50539
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01181-DMG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Mark Joseph Botta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for wire fraud and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a) and 1343. Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Botta’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there
FILED
JUL 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
We have provided Botta the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro
se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Botta waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Botta also waived the right
to appeal six specified issues related to 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 Botta’s plea or any sentencing
issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver, including the restitution award. 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.
13-50539 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.