FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10461
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00945-PGR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
VICENTE SANCHEZ-GUZMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Vicente Sanchez-Guzman appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-
month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sanchez-Guzman’s counsel
has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to
*
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).
withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Sanchez-Guzman with the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Sanchez-Guzman has filed a pro se
supplemental brief, and no answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We
decline to address Sanchez-Guzman’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on
direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and his legal representation
was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that he obviously was
denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327
F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are
generally inappropriate on direct appeal.”). We dismiss in light of the valid appeal
waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Sanchez-Guzman’s
motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
DISMISSED.
2 10-10461