United States of America v. Raymundo Gavino-Mariscal

12-10276Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit14 de fev. de 2013

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior United States District Judge*
*
for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RAYMUNDO GAVINO-MARISCAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10276
D.C. No. 4:11-cr-02568-JGZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Gordon J. Quist, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 11, 2013***
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Raymundo Gavino-Mariscal appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10276 2
possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(i); and 846; and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II); and 846. Pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gavino-Mariscal’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 Gavino-Mariscal the opportunity to file a pro
se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Gavino-Mariscal has waived his right to appeal his conviction and 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.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.