From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Lozano-Santiago

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 16, 2003
61 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


61 Fed.Appx. 455 (9th Cir. 2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. David LOZANO-SANTIAGO, Defendant--Appellant. No. 02-50166. D.C. No. CR-01-00774-WJR-01. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 16, 2003

Submitted April 7, 2003.

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, William J. Rea, District Judge, Presiding.

Before RYMER, KLEINFELD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

David Lozano Santiago appeals from his guilty plea conviction and sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Santiago's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, (1967), stating there are no arguable issues for review and seeking to withdraw as counsel of record. Santiago has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no issues for review. Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Lozano-Santiago

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 16, 2003
61 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

U.S. v. Lozano-Santiago

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. David LOZANO-SANTIAGO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 16, 2003

Citations

61 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2003)