Narrative Opinion Summary
Alejandro Solorio-Cadena appeals his 46-month sentence for re-entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. His counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel. The appellant was given the chance to submit a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. An independent review of the record, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, revealed no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. As a result, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the district court’s judgment. This decision is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except as stipulated by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court after determining that there were no arguable grounds for appeal.
Reasoning: As a result, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Anders Brief and Counsel Withdrawalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court permitted the withdrawal of the appellant's counsel after an Anders brief was filed, indicating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Reasoning: His counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel.
Independent Review for Arguable Groundssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court conducted an independent review of the case record, as required by Penson v. Ohio, and found no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, revealed no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Non-Precedential Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not considered binding precedent and is not for publication, except under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: This decision is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except as stipulated by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pro Se Submission Opportunitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was provided an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief on his own behalf but did not take advantage of this opportunity.
Reasoning: The appellant was given the chance to submit a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so.