United States v. Jesus Acevedo-Landin

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date filed: 2017-10-02
Citations:
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 2 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    16-50437

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:16-cr-01481-LAB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JESUS ACEVEDO-LANDIN,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Jesus Acevedo-Landin appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for attempted reentry

of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Acevedo-Landin’s counsel has filed a brief



      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided Acevedo-Landin the opportunity to file a pro

se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or 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.

         Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

         AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                   16-50437