Court Opinion

ID: 9910450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 18:01:01.447846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:06.044193
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         DEC 15 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ALBERTO BAUTISTA,                           No. 18-15471

                Petitioner-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00532-DLR

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
RYAN THORNELL, Director of the Arizona
Department of Corrections; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
ARIZONA,

                Respondents-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before:      WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Luis Alberto Bautista appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Bautista’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided

Bautista the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Bautista’s motion for judicial notice of the special verdict in his underlying

criminal proceeding is granted. See Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th

Cir. 2011).

      Our independent review of the briefing and record pursuant to Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses that the certified issues provide no basis

for appellate relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   18-15471