United States v. Yan Fu ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 22 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    23-50032
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00621-AB-4
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    YAN FU, AKA Sharon,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 15, 2023**
    Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
    Yan Fu appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-
    plea conviction, 20-month sentence, and restitution order for conspiracy to commit
    money laundering, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    (a)(1)(B)(i), (h). Pursuant to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), Fu’s counsel has filed a brief stating
    *
    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).
    that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
    record. We have provided Fu the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief.
    No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
    Fu waived her right to appeal her conviction, with the exception of an appeal
    based on a claim that her plea was involuntary. She also waived the right to appeal
    her sentence, with the exception of the court’s restitution order and certain
    nonstandard supervised release conditions. 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 Fu’s plea, the restitution order, and all of the
    exempted supervised release conditions. 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                                     23-50032
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-50032

Filed Date: 8/22/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/22/2023