United States of America v. Santiago Valle-Dominguez, a.k.a. Santiago Ramirez-Valle

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
SANTIAGO VALLE-DOMINGUEZ,
a.k.a. Santiago Ramirez-Valle,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10541
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00534-JMR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Valle-Dominguez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 41-
month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Valle-Dominguez’s counsel
FILED
DEC 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10541 2
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 the appellant with the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. The appellant has filed a motion
for appointment of new counsel, and no answering brief has 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.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Valle-
Dominguez’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --