Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
. FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 04-10659
D.C. No. CR-04-00587-SMM
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUDGMENT
LUIS ENRIQUE SERVIN-OJEDA,
Defendant — Appellant.
l Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona A
(Phoenix). ‘
On consideration whereof} it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the appeal in this cause be, and hereby is DISMISSED. .
Filed and entered 04/10/06 p
' I $;f~'iI~}E Egignznsou '
- Clerk o1"Ccurt
ATTEST p _..· - ..
A MAY u 2 zms
by: I
Case 2:04-cr—OO587—SI\/II\/I Document 54 Filed 05/O2 ‘a•» -.s- ‘ o

NOT Pon PUBLICATION APR 10 2000
UNITED STATES counr or APPEALS °AT`J?£-“°?¢ FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 04-10659
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-00587-SMM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
LUIS ENRIQUE SERVIN-OJEDA,
Defendant - Appellant. _
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding `
Submitted April 5, 2006**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Luis Enrique Servin-Ojeda appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and the
. 44-month Sentence imposed for transportation of illegal aliens, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § l324(a)(l)(A)(ii) and (a)(l)(B)(iii).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit exceptas provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
M This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:04-cr-OO587—SI\/II\/I Document 54 Filed O5/O2/2006 Page 2 of 3

I Pursuant to Anders v. Calybrnia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Servin-
Ojeda has tiled a brief stating there are no grounds for relietj and a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. Servin-Ojeda has not tiled a pro se supplemental
brief
We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen,.
235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Uir. 2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it
is entered into knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v. Cardenas,
l 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law (
imposed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not render waiver of
appeal involuntary and unknowing).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
The appeal is DISMISSED.
· 2
Case 2:04-cr—OO587—SI\/II\/I Document 54 Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00587-SMM

Document 54

Filed 05/02/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00587-SMM

Document 54

Filed 05/02/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00587-SMM

Document 54

Filed 05/02/2006

Page 3 of 3