Court Opinion

ID: 4305472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-20 20:00:29.538975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:35.890182
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 20 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-10003

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00132-JAS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
GUSTAVO DE LA CRUZ-HERNANDEZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before:      FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Gustavo De La Cruz-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for smuggling of

goods from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a). Pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), De La Cruz-Hernandez’s counsel has

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

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided De La Cruz-Hernandez 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                                    18-10003