Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0737-01.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. Marvin Rolando FUNEZ-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Marvin Rolando Funes-Gonzalez, a.k.a. Marvin Rolando Gonzalez, a.k.a. Marvin Funes-Gonzales, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 14-10180, 14-10181.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 10, 2015.
    Mary Sue Feldmeier, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Myrna R. Beards, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: FISHER, 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, Marvin Rolando Funez-Gonzalez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive eight-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Funez-Gonzalez’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 Funez-Gonzalez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Funez-Gonzalez waived the right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009). We accordingly dismiss these appeals. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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