United States v. Mark Botta , 610 F. App'x 691 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               JUL 28 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-50539
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01181-DMG
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MARK JOSEPH BOTTA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    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
    *
    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).
    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.
    2                                   13-50539
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-50539

Citation Numbers: 610 F. App'x 691

Judges: Canby, Bea, Murguia

Filed Date: 7/28/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024