Court Opinion

ID: 1037893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-08-20 00:00:38.8126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:55.371324
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       FILED
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                         AUG 19 2013

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 12-10088

                Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:11-cr-02970-DCB

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
ELEAZAR RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                      John A. Jarvey, District Judge, Presiding **

                             Submitted August 14, 2013 ***

Before:         SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Eleazar Ramirez-Vasquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for reentry after

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
            The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), Ramirez-Vasquez’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 Ramirez-Vasquez 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.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                  12-10088