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

UNITED STATES COURT 01-I APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10077
D.C. No. CR-04-01113-EHC
Plaintiff — Appellee, I
V.
JUDGMENT
RICARD0 PLAZA-RAZC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
On consideration whereoi it is now here ordered and adjudged by this p
Court, that the appeal in this cause be, and herebyis DISMISSED. .
Filed and entered 12/12/05
. 1%*.2%% missai
~ » 9 A-!. ·-
Case 2:O4—cr—O1113-EHC Document 27 Filed O1/O4/2006 Page 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
n L UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS D
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEC 12 2005
°’“U‘§. '%é·i$”%T§.'?zT*t»?p“.%i‘i'eE““
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05—lO077 ` `
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. CR-O4-011 l3~EHC
v. .
RICARDO PLAZA-RAZO, MEMORANDUM i
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona _
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2005**
l Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Plaza-Razo appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month
_ sentence imposed for illegal re—entry into the United States following deportation,
in violation of S U.S.C. § l326(a) enhanced by § l326(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:O4—cr—O1113-EHC Document 27 Filed O1/O4/2006 Page 2 of 3

U Pursuant to Anders v. Calgiornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Plaza-
Razo has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relieii and a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief has been filed.
Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988), indicates that Plaza-Razo knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea
agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v.
Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is
valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v.
Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that the changes in ‘
sentencing law imposed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not
render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED.
i A mus coav.
8fglL"éi*e§§.llE“'S°N
AITEST l p
l
Case 2:O4—cr—O1113-EHC Document 27 Filed O1/O4/2006 Page 3 of 3 _

Case 2:04-cr-01113-EHC

Document 27

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01113-EHC

Document 27

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01113-EHC

Document 27

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 3 of 3