Court Opinion

ID: 623349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-02-23 01:04:20+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:04.109413
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 22 2012

                                                                        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. 11-10082

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01361-DGC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ-
MALDONADO, a.k.a. Alejandro R.
Maldonado, a.k.a. Alexandro R.
Maldonado, a.k.a. Felipe Olivera Mejia,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 21, 2012 **

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

       Alejandro Rodriguez-Maldonado appeals from his guilty-plea conviction

and 21-month sentence for re-entry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

          *
             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).
§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rodriguez-

Maldonado’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant

with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental

brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.

                                           2                                  11-10082