United States v. Ricky Alvarez ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10421
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00092-SPL-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICKY PAUL ALVAREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
The stay of this appeal, entered on July 27, 2021, is lifted.1
*
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).
1
We may resolve this appeal without a disposition by the Supreme Court in
United States v. Taylor, No. 20-1459, as to whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery
is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). See United States
v. Goodall, 21 F.4th 555 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the defendant’s appeal
waiver foreclosed his challenge to his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction because the
Ricky Paul Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 192-month sentence for
attempted Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), respectively.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Alvarez’s counsel has filed
a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw
as counsel of record. We have provided Alvarez the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Alvarez 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 dismiss
the appeal. See id. at 988.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
illegal sentence exception to appellate waivers does not apply to challenges to
illegal convictions).
2 19-10421