Court Opinion

ID: 147726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-06-03 00:02:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:38.918949
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          JUN 02 2010

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-10291

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:04-cr-01303-MHM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
VINCENTE ORTIZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 25, 2010 **

Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

       Vincente Ortiz appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

       Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 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                                    09-10291