UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSE MANUEL ARANA-GALICIA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

9th Cir. | 1992-12-04
No. 91-50846
Before: TANG, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
981 F.2d 1044 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court denied the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant failed to timely file an opening brief. Counsel moved to withdraw, believing the appeal lacked merit due to a plea agreement waiver. The cou…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

On April 16, 1992, the court ordered appellant to show cause for failure to timely file an opening brief. Appellant’s counsel responded and moved to be relieved as counsel of record. Counsel stated that he believed that the appeal lacked merit because appellant had waived his right to appeal pursuant to a plea agreement.

On June 1,1992, this court ordered appellant 'to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed on the basis of his waiver. See United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F. 2d 318 (9th Cir.1990). On August 18, 1992, the court further ordered appellee to respond to counsel’s motion to withdraw. Appellee was ordered to address the issue whether the appeal should be dismissed.

The court has received and reviewed the parties' responses. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, contained in its response, is denied.

Appellant’s counsel shall file an opening brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and United States v. Griffy, 895 F. 2d 561 (9th Cir.1990), by January 11, 1993. In the meantime, appellant may file a pro se supplemental brief by January 25, 1993. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. Appellee’s answering brief is due February 25,1993. Appellant’s reply brief, if any, is due March 11, 1993.

Appellee may renew its motion to dismiss following filing of the Anders brief and the pro se supplemental brief.

Judge Kozinski dissents for the reasons set forth in his dissent in United States v. Gonzalez, 981 F. 2d 1037 (9th Cir.1992), which immediately precedes this Order.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw