Opinion
No. 20-10257
05-21-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO CASTILLO PADILLA, AKA Alejandro Castillo-Padilla, AKA Alejandro Castro Padilla, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00288-ROS-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Alejandro Castillo Padilla appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Padilla's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Padilla has filed a letter, which we treat as a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Padilla's pro se argument that he believed he "had a plea for 13 months," and was unaware that he could be sentenced to 24 months, is belied by the record.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.