United States of America v. Eduardo Garcia-Cortez, a.k.a. Jose Raul Aguilar-Cortez, a.k.a. Eduardo Garcia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDUARDO GARCIA-CORTEZ, a.k.a.
Jose Raul Aguilar-Cortez, a.k.a. Eduardo
Garcia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 12-10612
12-10613
D.C. Nos. 2:12-cr-00271-NVW
2:12-cr-50041-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Eduardo Garcia-Cortez appeals his jury-trial
conviction and 92-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326; and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 18-month
FILED
FEB 26 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Garcia-Cortez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds
for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Garcia-Cortez has
filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
In his pro se brief, Garcia-Cortez contends that his counsel provided
ineffective assistance. We decline to review this claim on direct appeal because
this is not one of the “unusual cases where (1) the record on appeal is sufficiently
developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) the legal representation is so
inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel.” United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
12-10612 & 12-10613 2

-- 2 of 2 --