From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Perez-Cruz

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 19, 2002
31 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion


31 Fed.Appx. 548 (9th Cir. 2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margarito PEREZ-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 01-10393. D.C. No. CR-01-00247-RGS. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 19, 2002

Submitted March 11, 2002 .

The 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 District of Arizona Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FARRIS, W. FLETCHER 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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Margarito Perez-Cruz appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Perez-Cruz's attorney has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Perez-Cruz has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel has not identified any non-frivolous issues for appeal. Our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), also discloses no issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Perez-Cruz

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 19, 2002
31 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir. 2002)
Case details for

U.S. v. Perez-Cruz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margarito PEREZ-CRUZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 19, 2002

Citations

31 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir. 2002)