United States of America v. Jesus Espinoza-Tejada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESUS ESPINOZA-TEJADA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 12-10654
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01261-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESUS ESPINOZA-TEJADA, a.k.a. Maria
Delgada, a.k.a. Mario Israel Gomez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10655
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-50136-RCC
FILED
APR 18 2014
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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Lawrence L. Piersol, District Judge, Presiding **
Submitted March 31, 2014***
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Espinoza-Tejada appeals from his
guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and also appeals from the revocation of supervised
release and consecutive six-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Espinoza-Tejada’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 Espinoza-Tejada the opportunity to file a
pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has
been filed.
Espinoza-Tejada has waived his right to appeal his reentry-after-deportation
conviction and 60-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue
as to the validity of the waiver, we dismiss Appeal No. 12-10654. See United
** The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior United States District
Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief with respect to the
revocation of supervised release or the sentence imposed upon revocation. We
therefore affirm the judgment challenged in Appeal No. 12-10655.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Appeal No. 12-10654 DISMISSED; Appeal No. 12-10655 AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --