The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-50075•United States of America v. David Miranda-Ramirez
15-50075Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 30, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID MIRANDA-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50075
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02307-WQH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 24, 2015**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
David Miranda-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his sentence of 37 months in prison and one year supervised release for
attempted re-entry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Miranda-Ramirez’s counsel has filed a
FILED
NOV 30 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 --
brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw
as counsel of record. We have provided Miranda-Ramirez the opportunity to file a
pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has
been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.