From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Vargas-Ochoa

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 4, 2008
291 F. App'x 840 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-10160.

Submitted August 26, 2008.

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

Filed September 4, 2008.

Liz Barrick, Esq., USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alfredo Vargas-Ochoa, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Alex Gonzalez, Gonzalez Smith PC, Chandler, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00016-1-MHM.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Alfredo Vargas-Ochoa appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Vargas-Ochoa'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.

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 judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Vargas-Ochoa

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 4, 2008
291 F. App'x 840 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Vargas-Ochoa

Case Details

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

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 4, 2008

Citations

291 F. App'x 840 (9th Cir. 2008)