UNITED STATES v. CARRILLO (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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.