Case ID: f-appx_600/html/0573-01.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. Francisco ROSALES-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10506.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2015.
    
    Filed April 27, 2015.
    Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark Paige, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Rosales-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii) and (v)(l); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rosales-Hernandez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Rosales-Hernandez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Rosales-Hernandez has waived the 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). Rosales-Hernandez’s contention that the government breached the plea agreement is not supported by the record because Rosales-Hernandez received the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility that he was promised. Moreover, the district court did not provide an unqualified advisement that Rosales-Hernandez retained the right to appeal. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 618-20 (9th Cir.2012). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.

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.