Filed: Aug. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10003 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00132-JAS v. MEMORANDUM* GUSTAVO DE LA CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Gustavo De La
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10003 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00132-JAS v. MEMORANDUM* GUSTAVO DE LA CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Gustavo De La C..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10003
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00132-JAS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GUSTAVO DE LA CRUZ-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo De La Cruz-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for smuggling of
goods from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a). Pursuant to
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), De La Cruz-Hernandez’s counsel has
*
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).
filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided De La Cruz-Hernandez 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 18-10003