FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10036
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. 4:13-cr-00877-JGZ-BGM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE VAZQUEZ-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Vazquez-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his jury-trial conviction and 63-month sentence for reentry after
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), Vazquez-Ramirez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
Vazquez-Ramirez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has
been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
We decline to review Vazquez-Ramirez’s pro se ineffective assistance of
counsel claim on direct appeal because this is not one of the “unusual cases where
(1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the
issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a
defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Rahman, 642
F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10036