From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Perez-Ortiz

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 29, 2010
402 F. App'x 222 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-10445.

Submitted October 19, 2010.

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

Filed October 29, 2010.

Claire Lefkowitz, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas Scott Hartzell, T.S. Hartzell, Attorney at Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00351-RCC.

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

Jacinto Perez-Ortiz appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), PerezOrtiz'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 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, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Perez-Ortiz

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 29, 2010
402 F. App'x 222 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Perez-Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacinto PEREZ-ORTIZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 29, 2010

Citations

402 F. App'x 222 (9th Cir. 2010)