United States v. 2020-07-17 | 20-10024 | USA V. ISABEL PEREZ-ARELLANEZ | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ISABEL PEREZ-ARELLANEZ, AKA
Christian Perez-Cariol, AKA Christian
Perez-Carlon,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10024

D.C. No.
4:12-cr-01025-RCC-LAB-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Isabel Perez-Arellanez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 20-year sentence imposed upon resentencing for one count of
conspiracy to commit hostage taking and three counts of hostage taking, all in

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

JUL 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-10024
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203(a), and one count of being an illegal alien in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Perez-Arellanez’s counsel
has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. Perez-Arellanez 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. Contrary
to Perez-Arellanez’s arguments in his pro se brief, the district court did not err in
calculating the Guidelines range or impose an “illegal general sentence.” Also, the
district court’s imposition of a term of supervised release was proper under the
circumstances of this case. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. Finally, the district
court did not plainly err by failing to instruct the jury that it had to find that Perez-
Arellanez knew he was an illegal alien to convict him of being an illegal alien in
possession of a firearm, see Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019),
because, when Perez-Arellanez possessed the firearm at issue, he had been
convicted of illegal entry twice and had been removed to Mexico three times. See
United States v. Benamor, 937 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2019).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.