Case ID: f-appx_581/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jovanni AGUIRRE-RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 13-10417, 13-10418.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    Filed June 30, 2014.
    Matthew G. Eltringham, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Darla Jean Mondou, Esquire, Mondou Law Office, Maraña, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 4:ll-cr-03678-RCC, 4:ll-cr-50275-RCC.
    Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Jovanni Aguirre-Rivas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and his revocation of supervised release and 4-month consecutive sentence imposed thereupon. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Aguirre-Rivas’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 Aguirre-Rivas the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Aguirre-Rivas has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal in case number 13-10417. See id. at 988. Because Aguirre-Rivas has fully served the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, we dismiss the appeal in case number 13-10418 as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 12-14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.