United States of America v. Eduardo Corral, a.k.a. Eduardo Flores Corral, a.k.a. Eduardo Mendoza Corral, a.k.a.…

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
EDUARDO CORRAL, a.k.a. Eduardo
Flores Corral, a.k.a. Eduardo Mendoza
Corral, a.k.a. Edwardo Corral, a.k.a.
Huero, a.k.a. Eduardo Corral Mendoza,
a.k.a. Edward Mendoza,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50395
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01353-RGK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Corral appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 135-month
FILED
OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50395
sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and transfer of a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(o)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Corral’s
counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion
to withdraw as counsel of record. Corral filed a pro se brief and the government
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
Corral 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 five specified issues related to his sentence. 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 Corral’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of
the appeal waiver. 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.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
The government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part.
Corral’s pro se motion to dismiss the government’s August 7, 2012, reply
brief is DENIED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --