Court Opinion

ID: 4034971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-19 21:01:25.717318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:40.725935
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 19 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   15-10544

               Plaintiff-Appellee,               D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00995-SPL

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
CARLOS RAMON ZAVALA-RUIZ,
a.k.a. Carlos Ramon Zavala,

               Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 13, 2016**

Before:        HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Carlos Ramon Zavala-Ruiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 18-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 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).
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Zavala-Ruiz’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 Zavala-Ruiz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Zavala-Ruiz 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                                   15-10544