Court Opinion

ID: 3031601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-13 22:46:15.451166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:28.103058
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 07 2010

                                                                        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. 08-10570

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:07-cr-01768-RCC

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
 JOSE LUIS FAVELA-HERNANDEZ,
 AKA Luis Olivas-Chavez, AKA Jose Luis
 Sanchez-Favela,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                      Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted December 15, 2009 **

Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

        Jose-Luis Favela-Hernandez appeals from his 71-month sentence for re-

entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.

          *
             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).

SR/Research
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Favela-Hernandez’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.

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

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

SR/Research                               2                                    08-10570