From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Garcia-Cordova

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 5, 2008
276 F. App'x 695 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-50520.

Submitted April 22, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed May 5, 2008.

U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Darla J. Mondou, Esq., Marana, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-04-02073-JAH.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


Ramon Alfredo Garcia-Cordova appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia-Cordova'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 the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We dismiss the appeal 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

U.S. v. Garcia-Cordova

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 5, 2008
276 F. App'x 695 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Garcia-Cordova

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Alfredo…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 5, 2008

Citations

276 F. App'x 695 (9th Cir. 2008)