Narrative Opinion Summary
Mario Saul Alvarado appeals his guilty plea conviction and 57-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. His counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel. Alvarado was given the chance to submit a pro se brief but did not do so. An independent review of the record revealed no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. The appeal is dismissed due to a valid appeal waiver, and the motion for counsel to withdraw is granted. The disposition is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent except as noted in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anders Brief and Counsel Withdrawalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The counsel filed an Anders brief, indicating no grounds for relief, and requested to withdraw, which is a procedural step when an attorney believes an appeal lacks merit.
Reasoning: His counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel.
Guilty Plea Conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case involves an appeal from a guilty plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, highlighting the legal considerations for such offenses.
Reasoning: Mario Saul Alvarado appeals his guilty plea conviction and 57-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Independent Review and Appeal Dismissalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An independent review of the record revealed no arguable grounds for relief, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on a valid appeal waiver.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record revealed no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. The appeal is dismissed due to a valid appeal waiver.
Non-precedential Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not intended to be published and does not set a precedent, except as provided by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The disposition is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent except as noted in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pro Se Brief Submission Opportunitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was given an opportunity to submit a pro se brief, which he did not utilize, impacting the appeal process.
Reasoning: Alvarado was given the chance to submit a pro se brief but did not do so.