Court Opinion

ID: 4390489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-24 21:00:24.957013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:30.306581
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 24 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-10208

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00251-SRB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RAYMUNDO SANCHEZ-NANES, a.k.a.
Armando Pacheco, a.k.a. Enrique Perez-
Ovando,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                            Submitted April 17, 2019**

Before:      McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Raymundo Sanchez-Nanes appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-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), Sanchez-Nanes’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 Sanchez-Nanes the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

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

      Sanchez-Nanes 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                                   18-10208