Court Opinion

ID: 212445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-16 00:02:09+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:33.052270
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 15 2011

                                                                         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. 09-10274

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00275-NVW

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
PEDRO MARTINEZ-HERRERA,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                      Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted March 8, 2011 **

Before:        FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Pedro Martinez-Herrera appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-

month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Martinez-Herrera’s

counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion

          *
             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).
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.

      Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    09-10274