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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, N0. O2-10505
D.C. N0. CR-O2-00389-JAT
Plaintiff- Appellee, .
V.
JUDGMENT
JOSE L. ABREGO-RAMOS,
A I I A Deréiidmii — 4 A » 4 ~ . ....
Appeal hom the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(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 09/22/05
A TRUE COPY I N A
sz-·’" `Z`7"% ’
th- lin .1;-;
~/rrr 7 . i
’ ; ‘- 6** — Sie
Q`? I — I
1 ‘~~**°—
1
1 .
Case 2:02-cr-00389-JAT Document 45 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 1 of 3

~ |=n.Eo I
Nor Pon PUBLICATION SEP 22 2¤¤5
UNITED STATES couar OF APPEALS °ATUY$·Aé6°~ii<1·i'<`iFR?~·i°P"i€¤°?5ERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT p
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ne. 02-10505
Plaintiff — Appellee, D.C. N0. CR-O2-00389-JAT
V V _' -__ l J-V ` """" """""' T ‘ . "‘ M"' _ P Y - l l ` — — J 2 7 - . . rr r 7 .
V. ‘ `
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE L. ABREGO-RAMOS, _
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
submitted septmbei 12, 2005**
Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Jose LQ AbregoiRa1riSs appeals his conviction and 46-month sentence I
imposed for illegal re-entry into the United States following deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § l326(a) and (b)(2). Abrego-Ramos’s attorney has moved
° This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited I
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 2:02-cr-00389-JAT Document 45 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 2 of 3

U to withdraw pursuant- to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), on the ground
that the appeal presents no arguable issues. Abrego-Ramos has not submitted a
pro se supplemental brief. U
i Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988), indicates that Abrego-Ramos knowingly and
C t . it - e -.ita1uma@1uztaivad his and wassentenmd within the tgr¤nsgft13¢__ , Q ,_
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 _
A valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v.
Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, .1048 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting 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.
( ‘ iti“ ; i>i
2 - W i. . 1 _.i°`
Case 2:02-cr—00389-JAT Document 45 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00389-JAT

Document 45

Filed 10/14/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00389-JAT

Document 45

Filed 10/14/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00389-JAT

Document 45

Filed 10/14/2005

Page 3 of 3