United States v. Alejandro Tinoco ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50010
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01093-DSF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALEJANDRO TINOCO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Tinoco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Tinoco’s counsel has filed a brief
*
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).
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel of record. We have provided Tinoco the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Tinoco waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Tinoco also waived the
right to appeal five specified issues related to his sentence. Our independent
review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses
no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Tinoco’s plea or any
sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to
those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal
waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-50010