Court Opinion

ID: 2740084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-06 22:02:04.256167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:08.375640
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 6 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10668

                Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01005-RCC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
DAGOBERTO CERVANTES-
PORTILLO,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                     Linda R. Reade, District Judge, Presiding**

                           Submitted September 23, 2014***

Before:         W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

       Dagoberto Cervantes-Portillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-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 Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, 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), Cervantes-Portillo’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 Cervantes-Portillo 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                                    13-10668