Court Opinion

ID: 148661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-06-16 00:01:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:03.724823
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 15 2010

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-10025

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00615-MHM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
HUGO MENDEZ-TORRES,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 25, 2010 **

Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

       Hugo Mendez-Torres appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed

following revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mendez-Torres’ counsel has filed a brief stating there are no

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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. 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, 80-81 (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.

                                          2                                    09-10025