United States of America v. Ricardo Pereyra-Equihua, a.k.a. Ruben Rosales Osuna, a.k.a. Ricardo Pereira, a.k.a.…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICARDO PEREYRA-EQUIHUA, a.k.a.
Ruben Rosales Osuna, a.k.a. Ricardo
Pereira, a.k.a. Ricardo Pereya-Ehihua,
a.k.a. Ricardo Pereyro,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50124
D.C. No. 5:11-cr-00032-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Pereyra-Equihua appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 132-month sentence for conspiracy to
FILED
DEC 04 2013
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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Pereyra-
Equihua’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 Pereyra-
Equihua the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Pereyra-Equihua 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 as long as his
sentence did not exceed 210 months. 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 the voluntariness of Pereyra-Equihua’s plea or any sentencing issue
outside the scope of the sentencing appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those
issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waivers.
See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-50124 2

-- 2 of 2 --