United States v. Robert Carrillo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10378
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00185-TLN-3
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT CARRILLO, AKA Robert
Carillo,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Carrillo appeals interlocutorily the district court’s order denying his
motion to enjoin prosecution or dismiss the indictment for violation of a
congressional appropriations rider, which he contends prohibits the Department of
Justice from spending funds to prosecute him. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1170-72 (9th
Cir. 2016).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Carrillo’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 Carrillo the opportunity to file a
pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has
been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on appeal. See United
States v. Evans, 929 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2019) (to enjoin a marijuana
prosecution, defendant must show “that it is more likely than not that the state’s
medical-marijuana laws completely authorized [his] conduct” (internal quotations
omitted)).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-10378