Case ID: f-appx_610/html/0690-01.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. Ezequiel ESPINOSA-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Daniel Jimenez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10553.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed July 28, 2015.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Brian Robert Decker, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jack L. Lansdale, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Jack L. Landsdale, Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Ezequiel Espinosa-Jimenez. pro se.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ezequiel Espinosa-Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 63-month sentence for attempted 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), Espinosa-Jimenez’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 Espinosa-Jimenez 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 direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Espinosa-Jimenez’s motion for an extension of time filed on April 6, 2015, is denied as moot in the light of the court’s order on the same date granting an extension sua sponte.

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