U.S. v. Rocha-Brenes

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edmundo ROCHA-BRENES…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 21, 1994

40 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 1994)

Opinion

40 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 1994) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edmundo ROCHA-BRENES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-10695. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit November 21, 1994

Submitted November 14, 1994. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. CR-93-05165-OWW; Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding.

E.D.Cal.

AFFIRMED.

Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.

Edmundo Rocha-Brenes appeals his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Rocha's counsel has filed a brief asserting that Rocha has no nonfrivolous issue on appeal and has requested permission to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rocha has filed a pro se motion for appointment of new counsel. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), discloses no nonfrivolous issues for review.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel of record is GRANTED, Rocha's pro se motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, and the district court's judgment is

AFFIRMED.