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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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.

Footnotes

[2] 18-10378