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

__ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10049
. D.C. No. CR-04-Ol 125-MHM
Plaintiff — Appellee,
JUDGMENT
ROSLINO ADRIANO-COTA, p
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 hereby is DISMISSED.
Filed and entered ll/18/05
A mus eopv ‘
§TQ?Eg;a?e€3L'E*S°"
mac 1 2 2005;
bv=
‘ D¤¤u1v<3¢e!k-
Case 2:04-cr-01125-I\/IHIVI Document 31 Filed 11/18/2005 ag` lb

# ‘ ‘ FILED
Nor Fon PUBLICATION NGV 10 2005
UNITED STATES COURT or APPEALS °ATUY£-”t%$:L'i=iT FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10049
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-01 l25—l\/[HM
V. u
MEMORANDUM*
ROSLINO ADRIANO-COTA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona I
Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2005 M
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
. Roslino Adriano—Cota appeals his conviction and 30—1nonth sentence
imposed for illegal re-entry into the United States following deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ l326(a) and (b)(2). Adriano-Cota’s attorney has moved
* 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—01125-I\/IHIVI Document 31 Filed 11/18/2005 Page 2 of 3

to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. Caly’ornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), on the ground
that the appeal presents no arguable issues. Adriano-Cota has not submitted a pro
se supplemental brief.
Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, n
488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988), indicates that Adriano-Cota 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, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), did not
render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, andthe appeal is
DISMISSED.
2
Case 2:04—cr—01125-I\/IHIVI Document 31 Filed 11/18/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01125-MHM

Document 31

Filed 11/18/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01125-MHM

Document 31

Filed 11/18/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-01125-MHM

Document 31

Filed 11/18/2005

Page 3 of 3