Court Opinion

ID: 4689137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-21 20:00:47.725965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:51.243144
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 21 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    20-10097

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                4:19-cr-00425-JAS-EJM-1
 v.

ALLAN OCTAVIO ARIAS-RAMOS, AKA                  MEMORANDUM*
Allan Octavio Arias,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Allan Octavio Arias-Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 40-month sentence for reentry of a

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

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Arias-Ramos’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are

      *
             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).
no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided Arias-Ramos 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                 20-10097