Court Opinion

ID: 1036169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-08-01 21:11:55.447164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:15.821665
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 01 2013

                                                                        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. 12-10438

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01897-SRB

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
MIGUEL ANGUIANO-JIMENEZ, a.k.a.
Miguel Jimenez-Anguiano,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted July 24, 2013 **

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

       Miguel Anguiano-Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

          *
             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).
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Anguiano-Jimenez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. Anguiano-Jimenez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering

brief has been filed.

      Anguiano-Jimenez has waived his right to appeal his conviction and

sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See

United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly

dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.

                                          2                                    12-10438