Court Opinion

ID: 176771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-10-07 00:02:23+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:39.671143
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               OCT 06 2010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. 09-50528

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02030-L

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
MARIO OCHOA-LOPEZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                  M. James Lorenz, Senior District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted September 13, 2010 **

Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Mario Ochoa-Lopez appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ochoa-

Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with

          *
             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).
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.

                                          2                                    09-50528