United States v. Michelle Estevez ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 21 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    21-15775
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00294-LEK-2
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MICHELLE ESTEVEZ, AKA Tammie Lynn
    Kalua,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Hawaii
    Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 14, 2023**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Michelle Estevez appeals from the district court’s order denying her 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion to vacate her sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California,
    
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), Estevez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no
    *
    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).
    grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Estevez
    has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
    Our independent review of the briefing and record pursuant to Penson v.
    Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), discloses that the certified issue provides no basis
    for appellate relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 
    731 F.3d 876
    , 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013).
    Contrary to Estevez’s pro se contention, the record demonstrates that her parole on
    her 1988 state burglary convictions was revoked in August 2002, after she signed a
    waiver of extradition, and a custodial sentence was imposed as a result of the
    revocation.
    We treat Estevez’s argument that the district court erred at sentencing as a
    motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied.
    See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 
    195 F.3d 1098
    , 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Appellee’s motion for an
    extension of time to file an answering brief is denied as moot.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   21-15775
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-15775

Filed Date: 3/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/21/2023