United States of America v. Mauro Preciado-Preciado

12-50492Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit19.08.2013

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
MAURO PRECIADO-PRECIADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50492
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03651-MMA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mauro Preciado-Preciado appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for attempted entry
after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Preciado-Preciado’s counsel has filed a brief
FILED
AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50492 2
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel of record. We have provided Preciado-Preciado the opportunity to file a
pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has
been filed.
Preciado-Preciado waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the
exception of an appeal challenging the district court’s order denying his motion to
dismiss the indictment. He also waived the right to appeal his sentence. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the district court’s order
denying Preciado-Preciado’s motion to dismiss. We therefore affirm as to that
issue. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver.
See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.