Medrano-Cruz

United States v. Medrano-Cruz

Good Law
523 F. App'x 448
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 13, 2013No. 12-10046California174 words

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Pedro Enrique Medrano-Cruz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Medrano-Cruz’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Me-drano-Cruz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Medrano-Cruz has waived his right to appeal the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.