Court Opinion

ID: 3039842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-13 23:01:44.916914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:35.288477
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 12 2010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. 09-10516

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00582-FJM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ARMANDO MARINO-NAVA,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                   Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted September 13, 2010 **

Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Armando Marino-Nava appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 86-

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

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

filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

          *
             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).
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                                    09-10516