Court Opinion

ID: 815464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-01-16 21:20:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:32.635117
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 16 2013

                                                                        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. 12-10096

                Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:11-cr-03586-CKJ

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
ELBIS SAUL MARTINEZ-ESCALON,
a.k.a. Elbis Saul Martinez,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                   Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding **

                             Submitted January 15, 2013 ***

Before:         SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

       Elbis Saul Martinez-Escalon appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for reentry after

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
              The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), Martinez-Escalon’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 Martinez-Escalon 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                                   12-10096