From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Perez-Romero

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 19, 2012
479 F. App'x 152 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-10513 D.C. No. 4:11-cr-01462-CKJ

09-19-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MANUEL TRINIDAD PEREZ-ROMERO, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Philip G. Reinhard, District Judge, Presiding

The Honorable Philip G. Reinhard, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Trinidad Perez-Romero appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Perez-Romero'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 Perez-Romero 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

United States v. Perez-Romero

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 19, 2012
479 F. App'x 152 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Perez-Romero

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MANUEL TRINIDAD…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 19, 2012

Citations

479 F. App'x 152 (9th Cir. 2012)