United States of America v. Jesus Humberto Ballesteros- Yanez, a.k.a. Humberto Ballesteros- Yanez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JESUS HUMBERTO BALLESTEROS-
YANEZ, a.k.a. Humberto Ballesteros-
Yanez,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 17-10381
17-10382
D.C. Nos. 4:10-cr-03153-DCB
4:17-cr-00701-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Humberto Ballesteros-Yanez appeals his
guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for possession with intent to
distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
* 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
JUL 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10381 & 17-10382
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive
18-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ballesteros-Yanez’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 construe the letter submitted by Ballesteros-Yanez on May 21, 2018,
as a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Ballesteros-Yanez waived his right to appeal his conviction, the revocation
of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88
(9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss these appeals. See id. at 988.
We decline to address on direct appeal Ballesteros-Yanez’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 of 2 --