United States v. Emilio Urena-Villa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10276
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:17-cr-01860-CKJ-BGM-1
v.
EMILIO URENA-VILLA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Emilio Urena-Villa appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for possession of
ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Urena-Villa’s
*
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).
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a
motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Urena-Villa has filed a pro se
supplemental brief, and the government has filed a motion to dismiss.
Urena-Villa 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). We accordingly GRANT
the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.
We decline to address on direct appeal Urena-Villa’s pro se claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
2 19-10276