United States of America v. Rigoberto Lopez-Roque

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RIGOBERTO LOPEZ-ROQUE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10419
No. 10-10420
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00061-DCB
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-50013-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Rigoberto Lopez-Roque appeals from his
guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for re-entry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release and imposing a six-month consecutive sentence. Pursuant to
FILED
MAR 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10419 2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lopez-Roque’s counsel has filed a brief
stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel
of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. Lopez-Roque has filed a supplemental brief A supplemental
answering brief has not been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.
In light of the foregoing, Lopez-Roque’s “motion for direct notification by
court to appellant” and the government’s motion for summary affirmance are
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --