Court Opinion

ID: 9901961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 19:00:50.398916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.611868
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-330
                                                D.C. No. 4:22-cr-01941-JCH-DTF-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

ROSENDO CALZADA-MARTINEZ,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   John C. Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Rosendo Calzada-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Calzada-Martinez’s counsel has filed a brief

      *
             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).
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided Calzada-Martinez the opportunity to file a

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

been filed.

      Calzada-Martinez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.

                                        2                                    23-330