Court Opinion

ID: 4034967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-19 21:01:25.465961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:13.769339
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                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 19 2016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.   16-10097

               Plaintiff-Appellee,               D.C. No. 3:15-cr-08265-SPL

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JOSE GABRIEL ROMERO
CONTRERAS, a.k.a. Jose Romero-
Contreas, a.k.a. Jose Gabriel Romero-
Contreras, a.k.a. Martin Carlos Villa,

               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.

      Jose Gabriel Romero Contreras appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for reentry of a

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

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Romero Contreras’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 Romero Contreras the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

         Romero Contreras 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                                  16-10097