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

` UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE, NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10308
D.C. No. CR—04-00420-SRB-2
Plaintiff - Appellee, .
n V.
. JUDGMENT
GERONIMO GARZA, JR.,
p 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
AFFIRMED. A
A Filed and entered l2/27/06
A mus cow
cnr:-iv A. carreesom
Clerk of Court
Arrest ~····
JAN 1 s zuni
. '»{lK€"
Case 2:04—cr—00420—SRB Document 115 Filed O1/18/2007 Page 1 of 3

{ - `C ‘ ` FILED
, Nor Fon PUBLICATION 020 27 2000 ‘
cm-nv A. cmnanson cream
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 0-0- 000*** OF A*’F'*?A*-S
_ FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10308
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. N0. CR-04-00420-SRB-2
V.
MEMORANDUM *
GERONIMO GARZA, JR.,
Defendant- Appellant.
A Appeal from the United States District Court
· for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 21, 2006**
Before: GOODRVIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Geronimo Garza, Jr. appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 15-month
sentence imposed for making false statements to the Farm Service Agency of the
°°` 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—OO420—SRB Document 115 Filed O1/18/2007 Page 2 of 3

United States Department of Agriculture, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1001, and
1 0 14.- '
Pursuant t0 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1-967), counsel for Garza
has filed a brief stating that she finds no grounds for relief along with a motion to l
withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief
l has been filed.
Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988), disclose no grounds for
relief on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Appe1lant’s motion for decision is DENIED as moot.
Counse1’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED. _
A TRUE COPY
1 cAn—w A. CATTERSON
Clerk of_C;0u¤t,
ATlEST·'
JAN 1 8 my
, T ..7
1 Dep » y *1erk
Case 2:04—cr—00420—SRB Document 115 Filed O1/18/200 age 0

Case 2:04-cr-00420-SRB

Document 115

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00420-SRB

Document 115

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00420-SRB

Document 115

Filed 01/18/2007

Page 3 of 3