United States of America v. Jose Islado Salas-Arredondo, a.k.a. Jose Islado, a.k.a. Crisoforo Sotello Mendez,…

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JOSE ISLADO SALAS-ARREDONDO,
a.k.a. Jose Islado, a.k.a. Crisoforo Sotello
Mendez, a.k.a. Jose Salas,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50342
D.C. No. 5:11-cr-00033-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Islado Salas-Arredondo appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and
30-month sentence for illegal reentry by an alien following deportation, in
FILED
SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50342 2
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Salas-Arredondo’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
Salas-Arredondo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Salas-Arredondo waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the
exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also
waived the right to appeal his sentence, with the exception of the court’s
calculation of his criminal history category. 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 Salas-Arredondo’s plea or the criminal history category calculated
by the court. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of
the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235
F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --