United States of America v. ALEJANDRO ARRIOLA, AKA Alejandro Arriola Aguilar, AKA Matias Valencia Arreguin, AKA…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO ARRIOLA, AKA
Alejandro Arriola Aguilar, AKA Matias
Valencia Arreguin, AKA Noe Fernandez,
AKA Cuahtemoc Fernandez Gonzalez,
AKA Luis Rubio, AKA Luis Campo
Rubio, AKA Matias Valencia,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50212
D.C. No. 8:14-cr-00017-PA-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 3, 2015**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
FILED
AUG 05 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Alejandro Arriola appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges
the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an
illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, Arriola-Aguilar’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 Arriola the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or
answering brief has been filed.
Arriola waived the right to appeal his sentence, except that he reserved the
right to appeal the district 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 the calculation of Arriola’s
criminal history category. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the
remainder of the sentencing 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

-- 2 of 2 --