United States v. Mario Reyes-Calderon

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50559 · 2016-06-20 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario REYES-CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Carlos T. Bea (author), Paul J. Watford, Michelle T. Friedland

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2016

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50559 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02147-DMS v. MEMORANDUM* MARIO REYES-CALDERON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Mario Reyes-Calderon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Reyes-Calderon’s counsel has filed a brief stating * 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). that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Reyes-Calderon the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Reyes-Calderon 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 14-50559