Court Opinion

ID: 9388576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 23:00:25.993153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.115175
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10258

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                4:21-cr-02241-CKJ-LCK-1
 v.

ELISEO CESPEDES-VARGAS,                         MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Eliseo Cespedes-Vargas appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for attempted reentry

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

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Cespedes-Vargas’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 Cespedes-Vargas the opportunity to file a

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

been filed.

      Cespedes-Vargas 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                                   22-10258