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)
15-10292•United States of America v. Guadalupe Antonio Castillo- Alvarado
15-10292Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 21, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GUADALUPE ANTONIO CASTILLO-
ALVARADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10292
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00122-JJT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Guadalupe Antonio Castillo-Alvarado appeals from the district court’s
judgment and challenges the sentence of 13 months and one day imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
FILED
MAR 21 2016
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 --
marijuana and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D)
and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Castillo-Alvarado’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
Castillo-Alvarado the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Castillo-Alvarado waived his 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582
F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at
988.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
15-10292 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.