Case ID: f-appx_571/html/0625-01.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. Mario Honorio MATA-CASTRO, a.k.a. Honorio Castro-Mata, a.k.a. Vicente Guerro, a.k.a. Mario Mata-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 13-10221, 13-10238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 31, 2014.
    
    Filed April 30, 2014.
    Mark S. Kokanovich, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Eric W. Kessler, Kessler Law Offices, Mesa, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mario Honorio Mata-Castro, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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, Mario Ho-norio Mata-Castro appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 14-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 22-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Mata-Castro’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 Mata-Castro the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Mata-Castro has waived his right to appeal his reentry of a removed alien conviction and 14-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver, we dismiss Appeal No. 13-10221. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

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 with respect to the revocation of supervised release or the sentence imposed upon revocation. We therefore affirm the judgment challenged in Appeal No. 13-10238.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Appeal No. 13-10221 DISMISSED; Appeal No. 13-10238 AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.