Court Opinion

ID: 2793121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-10 21:01:01.59922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:13:56.415911
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 10 2015

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-10372

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01955-JGZ

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ELIAS GARCIA-ALMONTE, a.k.a. Elias
Almonte Garica,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted April 7, 2015**

Before:        FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

       Elias Garcia-Almonte appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for reentry after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

          *
             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).
U.S. 738 (1967), Garcia-Almonte’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 Garcia-Almonte the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief.

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

      Garcia-Almonte 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                                   14-10372