United States v. Andrew Orozco ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10441
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-08061-JJT-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW CHRISTIAN OROZCO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Christian Orozco appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 97-month sentence, to be followed by a
lifetime term of supervision, imposed for assault by strangulation or suffocation, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(8) and 1153, and sexual abuse of a minor, in
*
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).
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2243(a), and 2246. Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Orozco’s counsel has filed a brief stating that
there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. Orozco has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief. No answering brief
has been filed.
Orozco waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Orozco’s pro se argument
that he should have received a lower custodial sentence and term of supervised
release is barred by the waiver. In any event, his sentence is consistent with the
stipulations in the binding plea agreement. Furthermore, the prosecutor did not
engage in misconduct by discussing at sentencing the dismissed charges. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3; United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 152-54 (1997) (per
curiam). We do not reach on direct appeal Orozco’s claim that his trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See Watson, 582
F.3d at 988.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
2 19-10441