Court Opinion

ID: 4346655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-03 21:00:28.908182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:19:56.949794
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 3 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-10160

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00171-SRB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CARLOS VAZQUEZ-ANTUNEZ, a.k.a.
Carlos Vasquez-Antunez,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Carlos Vazquez-Antunez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and sentence of 12 months and 1 day for

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

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vazquez-Antunez’s counsel has filed a brief

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

counsel of record. We have provided Vazquez-Antunez the opportunity to file a

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

been filed.

      Vazquez-Antunez 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                                   18-10160