Court Opinion

ID: 4146852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-21 21:01:10.900998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:27.260047
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               FEB 21 2017

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

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   16-50032

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00492-ODW

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JUAN PABLO LOPEZ ORTIZ,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                    Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before:      GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Pablo Lopez Ortiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an illegal

alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

      *
             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).
§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ortiz’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 Ortiz the opportunity to file a

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

been filed.

      Ortiz waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an

appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right to

appeal his sentence, with the exception of the court’s calculation of his criminal

history category. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the

voluntariness of Ortiz’s plea or the criminal history category calculated by the

court. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the

appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d
974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                           2                                     16-50032