Court Opinion

ID: 1036167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-08-01 21:11:55.246595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:58.372781
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          AUG 01 2013

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 12-10170

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:11-cr-04134-RCC

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
RAFAEL SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding **

                              Submitted July 24, 2013 ***

Before:        ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

       Rafael Sanchez-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The Honorable Marvin E. Aspen, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sanchez-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. We have provided Sanchez-Hernandez 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      The government’s motion to file a late letter is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    12-10170