USA V. MILLAN, No. 23-615 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 1 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-615 D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00713-ROS-1 MEMORANDUM* ISRRAEL MILLAN III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Isrrael Millan III appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 87-month sentence for conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1341, 1343, and 1957. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), * 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). Millan’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 Millan 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 direct appeal. However, in light of United States v. Montoya, 82 F.4th 640 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc), which was decided after Millan was sentenced, we vacate the 13 standard conditions of supervised release included in the written judgment and remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to orally pronounce any standard conditions it wishes to impose after giving Millan an opportunity to object. See id. at 656. On remand, the district court is further instructed to consider Millan’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to renewal in the district court. AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED. 2 23-615
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
