Court Opinion

ID: 3030544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-13 22:44:32.369235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:06.918181
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 16 2009

                                                                        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. 08-50571

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00581-PA

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
 RODOLFO GARCIA-PEREZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                      Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted November 17, 2009 **

Before:        ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

        Rodolfo Garcia-Perez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month

sentence imposed for being an alien found in the United States following

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
            The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

DAT/Research
       Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Garcia-Perez’s

counsel has 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.

DAT/Research                               2                                    08-50571