United States of America v. ALEJANDRO CASTILLO PADILLA, AKA Alejandro Castillo-Padilla, AKA Alejandro Castro Padilla

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO CASTILLO PADILLA,
AKA Alejandro Castillo-Padilla, AKA
Alejandro Castro Padilla,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-10257
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00288-ROS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Castillo Padilla appeals from the revocation of supervised release
and the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Padilla’s counsel has filed a brief stating that
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-10257
there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. Padilla has filed a letter, which we treat as a pro se supplemental brief. No
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 on direct appeal. Padilla’s
pro se argument that he believed he “had a plea for 13 months,” and was unaware
that he could be sentenced to 24 months, is belied by the record.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --