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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10077
D.C. No. CR-04-01 1 13-EHC
Plaintiff- Appellee,
v.
l JUDGMENT
RICARDO PLAZA-RAZO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof} it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
DISMISSED. (
Filed and entered 12/12/05 A TRUE COW l e
CATHY.A.,CATTERSON
Clerk of Court
ATTESIP I p
it . V i n qi,
I N 0 _
Case 2:O4—cr—O1113-EHC Document 26 Filed O1/O4/2006 Page 1 of 3

J I I
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
l UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS L E D
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEC 12 2005
°’“'J‘£ "&éit§'F§§§$p*&»ikE““
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10077 ` `
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-01113-EHC
~ RICARDO PLAZA-RAZO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona ,
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2005**
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Plaza-Razo appeals his guilty-plea conuiction and 63-month g
-0 M l sentence imposed for illegal re-entry into the United States following deportation,
in violation of 8 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.
** 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 26 Filed O1/O4/2006 Page 2 of 3

F .. .
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Plaza-
Razo has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relietQ and a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief has been tiled.
Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 1
488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988), indicates that Plaza-Razo knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to appeal and was sentencedgwidiin the tenns_of_th_e_g1ea o
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 1
sentencing law imposed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not
render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing). B
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED.
A mus . S
E;’f;Et?*`é€`e§5`.lTE“S°"
Arrest 1
` _ : *1
a' rs?
K
Case 2:O4—cr—O1113-EHC Document 26 Filed O1/O4/2006 Page 3 of 3 A

Case 2:04-cr-01113-EHC

Document 26

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01113-EHC

Document 26

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01113-EHC

Document 26

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 3 of 3