Court Opinion

ID: 178417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-10-29 20:37:01+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:05.424743
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               OCT 29 2010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. 09-10445

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00351-RCC

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
JACINTO PEREZ-ORTIZ, a.k.a. Jacinto
Ortiz Perez,

               Defendant - Appellant.

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

                            Submitted October 19, 2010 **

Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

       Jacinto Perez-Ortiz appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month

sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Perez-Ortiz’s counsel has

          *
             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).
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.

                                          2                                    09-10445