Court Opinion

ID: 9926567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 00:00:44.718301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:26.457685
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-1378
                                                D.C. No. 4:22-cr-02266-JGZ-LCK-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

EDGAR RENE GUILLEN-
BANEGAS, AKA Edgar Rene Guillen-
Ramirez, AKA Edgar Rene Guillen, AKA
Edgar Guillen-Ramirez,

             Defendant - Appellant.

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

                           Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Edgar Rene Guillen-Banegas appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 21-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), Guillen-Banegas’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 Guillen-Banegas 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                                   23-1378