United States v. David Jimenez-Pedroza , 548 F. App'x 413 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 06 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50483
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00370-DMG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID JIMENEZ-PEDROZA, a.k.a.
Oscar Manuel Guerrero,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
David Jimenez-Pedroza appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 235-month sentence for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
*
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).
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Jimenez-Pedroza’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no
grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Jimenez-
Pedroza has filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal.
Jimenez-Pedroza waived the right to appeal his conviction, with the
exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also
waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence, as long as his sentence did
not exceed 25 years. 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 Jimenez-Pedroza’s plea or any aspects of the sentence not covered
by the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We grant the
government’s motion in part and 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 12-50483