From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Rangel-Villa

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 18, 2019
No. 17-10423 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2019)

Opinion

No. 17-10423

03-18-2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALONSO RANGEL-VILLA, a.k.a. Alonso Rangel, a.k.a. Obe Alonso Rangel-Villa, a.k.a. Alonso Rangel Villa, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00746-GMS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Alonso Rangel-Villa appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rangel-Villa's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Rangel-Villa the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Rangel-Villa 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.

The record demonstrates that Rangel-Villa's plea was knowing and voluntary. Contrary to the arguments Rangel-Villa made in the district court, his sentence does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Guzman-Bruno, 27 F.3d 420, 422-23 (9th Cir. 1994). --------

On October 17, 2018, Rangel-Villa submitted volume III of the excerpts of record provisionally under seal, accompanied by a notice of intent to file that volume publicly pursuant to Interim Ninth Circuit Rule 27-13(f). No other party has filed a motion to file or maintain that volume under seal. Accordingly, the Clerk shall publicly file the notice, the Anders brief, and all three volumes of the excerpts of record.

Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

United States v. Rangel-Villa

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 18, 2019
No. 17-10423 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2019)
Case details for

United States v. Rangel-Villa

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALONSO RANGEL-VILLA…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 18, 2019

Citations

No. 17-10423 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2019)