United States v. Rigoberto Lopez-Roque

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10419 No. 10-10420 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00061-DCB v. D.C. No. 4:10-cr-50013-DCB RIGOBERTO LOPEZ-ROQUE, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 6, 2012 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Rigoberto Lopez-Roque appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a six-month consecutive sentence. Pursuant 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). Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lopez-Roque’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Lopez-Roque has filed a supplemental brief A supplemental answering brief has not 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. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. In light of the foregoing, Lopez-Roque’s “motion for direct notification by court to appellant” and the government’s motion for summary affirmance are DENIED. 2 10-10419