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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, N0. 04-10261 I ·
D.C. N0. CR-04-00020-RGS
Plaintiff- Appellee,
V.
JUDGMENT
ANGEL FLORES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
I On consideration whereoi it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the appeal in this cause be, and herebyis DISMISSED.
Filed and entered 09/15/05
A TRUE COPY
CATHY A. CATFERSON
Clerk of CoUrT` ‘ - ., ·
ATTEST
DCT ·· 7 2005 E
by: A .
Case 2:04-cr—00020—RGS Document- 22 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 1 of 3

Nor Fon PUBLICATION ` SEP 15 2005
cA1·uvA. cA1··rERsoN cuzmr
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 0-5- 00UPT 0F APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 04-10261
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. N0. CR-04-00020-RGS
v.
MEMORANDUM"
ANGEL FLORES,
Defendant- Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2005**
Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Angel Flores appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea
to second degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 1111, 2, and use ofa
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited
to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
*°°` This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:04-cr—00020—RGS Document 22 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 2 of 3

firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2.
Flores’ attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. Caldornia, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), on the ground that the appeal presents no arguable issues. Flores has
not submitted a pro se supplemental briei and no government brief has been filed. 4
Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988), indicates that Flores knowingly and voluntarily waived
his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we
enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d
1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered
knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046,
1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal
involuntary and unknowing).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED.
g`2_}$};lé%>f COU`l’T'
0[ZT ·? 2005 l
2 by: Aish -
nmmi
Case 2:04-cr—00020—RGS Document 22 Filed 10/07/ Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00020-RGS

Document 22

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00020-RGS

Document 22

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00020-RGS

Document 22

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 3 of 3