United States v. Alejandro Saucedo-Virgen
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alejandro SAUCEDO-VIRGEN, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Atsushi W. Tashima, Stephen S. Trott
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2009
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. 08-50312 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-03315-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * ALEJANDRO SAUCEDO-VIRGEN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2009 ** Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Saucedo-Virgen appeals from his jury-trial conviction and six concurrent 60-month sentences for bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EF/Research aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and bringing in illegal aliens without presentation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Saucedo-Virgen’s counsel has 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.
EF/Research 2 08-50312