Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0354-02.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. Jose VAZQUEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10036.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2015.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States District Court, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Susan Bryson Fox, Esquire, Law Offices of Stephen G. Ralls, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Vazquez-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 63-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Vazquez-Ramirez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Vazquez-Ramirez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No 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 direct appeal.

We decline to review Vazquez-Ramirez’s pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal because this is not one of the “unusual cases where (1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.2011).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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