Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0633-01.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. Jesus Mario SERRANO-PEREZ, aka Ariel Saldovar-Perez, aka James Serrano, aka Jesus Serrano, aka Jesus M. Serrano, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-50058.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 19, 2012.
    Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Kristen Anne Williams, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Myra Mossman, Esquire, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jesus Mario Serrano-Perez, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Mario Serrano-Perez appeals from his 60-month sentence, imposed after his guilty plea to being an illegal alien found in the United States after having been previously removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Serrano-Perez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

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.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We decline to review Serrano-Perez's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the record is not sufficiently developed to permit review on direct appeal. See United States v. Leasure, 319 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.2003).