United States v. Mariscal Zamorano

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50461 · 2015-09-01 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mariscal Santos ZAMORANO, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Mary M. McKeown (author), Richard R. Clifton, Andrew D. Hurwitz

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50461 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01019-JLS v. MEMORANDUM* MARISCAL SANTOS ZAMORANO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Mariscal Santos Zamorano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Zamorano’s counsel has filed a brief * 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). stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Zamorano the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Zamorano 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 14-50461