Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

‘ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINT H CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10164 ‘
D.C. No. CR-04-01148-JAT
Plaintiff - Appellee,
V.
JUDGMENT
JORGE GUILLEN-BRAVO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix). .
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the appeal in this cause be, and herebyis DISMISSED.
Filed and entered 01/17/06
ATRUE CQ } i .i F
ATTEST i g ;
cpm-w nc CATTE _ _ p
Gler ‘¤ Cond _, p
· / ‘*·* ;. . I
b. 4 " —- {
¤¤T>¤w AW
Case 2:04-cr—O1148—JAT Document 37 Filed O2/08/2006 Page 1 of 3

Nor Fon PUBLICATION JAN 17 2000
csmv A. cm-reason ctsnx
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 0-5- 00*-'PT OP APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10164
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-01148-JAT
V.
MEMoRANDUM*
J ORGE GUILLEN-BRAVO,
Defendant - Appellant. _
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 9, 2006**
Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Guillen-Bravo appeals from his guilty—plea conviction and 37-month
sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § l326(a),
enhanced by (b)(2).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
H This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:04-cr—O1148-JAT Document 37 Filed O2/08/2006 Page 2 of 3


Pursuant to Anders v. Caly’0rnz`a, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Guillen-
Bravo has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief and a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. Guillen-Bravo has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief and the government has not filed an answering brief.
We have conducted an independent review ofthe record pursuant to Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), and we dismiss in light of the valid appeal
waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating
that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily).
Counse1’s motion to withdraw is granted.
DISMISSED.
I ATRUECOPYo" -
ATTEST · Z/gf/of

`~»iTE.$`P‘¥·*t J 0 wl
2
Case 2:04-cr—O1148—JAT Document 37 Filed O2/O8/2006 Page 3 of 3


Case 2:04-cr-01148-JAT

Document 37

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01148-JAT

Document 37

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01148-JAT

Document 37

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 3 of 3