Case ID: f-appx_399/html/0253-01.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. Efrain CISNEROS-VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10512.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2010.
    Cassie Bray Woo, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Patrick Edward McGillicuddy, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Patrick E. McGilli-cuddy, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Efrain Cisneros-Valdez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for re-entry of a removed alien, 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), Cisneros-Valdez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. We construe the pro se letter received on June 4, 2010, as 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, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

We decline to rule on Cisneros-Valdez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003).

We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Cisneros-Valdez’s request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

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.