United States of America v. Mario Honorio Mata-Castro, a.k.a. Honorio Castro-Mata, a.k.a. Vicente Guerro, a.k.a.…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO HONORIO MATA-CASTRO,
a.k.a. Honorio Castro-Mata, a.k.a. Vicente
Guerro, a.k.a. Mario Mata-Martinez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 13-10221
13-10238
D.C. Nos. 2:13-cr-00131-LRR-1
2:09-cr-00964-LRR-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Linda R. Reade, Senior District Judge, Presiding **
Submitted March 31, 2014***
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Mario Honorio Mata-Castro appeals his
FILED
APR 30 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.
** The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

guilty-plea conviction and 14-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the revocation of supervised release and
consecutive 22-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mata-Castro’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 Mata-Castro the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Mata-Castro has waived his right to appeal his reentry of a removed alien
conviction and 14-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue
as to the validity of the waiver, we dismiss Appeal No. 13-10221. See United
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. 13-10238.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Appeal No. 13-10221 DISMISSED; Appeal No. 13-10238 AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --