Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Carlos Castillo-Rojo, 19-10173 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 19-10173 Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10173 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:18-cr-02600-RM-DTF-1 v. MEMORANDUM* CARLOS ANTONIO CASTILLO-ROJO, AKA Carlos Castillo-Rojo, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTE
More
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 25 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-10173

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:18-cr-02600-RM-DTF-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CARLOS ANTONIO CASTILLO-ROJO,
AKA Carlos Castillo-Rojo,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Carlos Antonio Castillo-Rojo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry of a

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

386 U.S. 738
(1967), Castillo-Rojo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are


      *
             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).
no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided Castillo-Rojo 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                                 19-10173

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer