Court Opinion

ID: 1037896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-08-20 00:00:39.422535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:55.491417
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          AUG 19 2013

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-10443

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00931-NVW-1

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
DESIDERIO DUARTE-RAMIREZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                      Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 14, 2013 **

Before:        SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Desiderio Duarte-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry of a

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

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Duarte-Ramirez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

          *
             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).
are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

We have provided Duarte-Ramirez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

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

      Duarte-Ramirez has 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                                   12-10443