United States of America v. Alonso Rangel-Villa, a.k.a. Alonso Rangel, a.k.a. Obe Alonso Rangel-Villa, a.k.a.…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALONSO RANGEL-VILLA, a.k.a. Alonso
Rangel, a.k.a. Obe Alonso Rangel-Villa,
a.k.a. Alonso Rangel Villa,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10423
D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00746-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alonso Rangel-Villa appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.
* 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
MAR 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10423
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rangel-Villa’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 Rangel-Villa the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Rangel-Villa 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.1 See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss
the appeal. See id. at 988.
On October 17, 2018, Rangel-Villa submitted volume III of the excerpts of
record provisionally under seal, accompanied by a notice of intent to file that
volume publicly pursuant to Interim Ninth Circuit Rule 27-13(f). No other party
has filed a motion to file or maintain that volume under seal. Accordingly, the
Clerk shall publicly file the notice, the Anders brief, and all three volumes of the
excerpts of record.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
1 The record demonstrates that Rangel-Villa’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
Contrary to the arguments Rangel-Villa made in the district court, his sentence
does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Guzman-Bruno, 27
F.3d 420, 422-23 (9th Cir. 1994).

-- 2 of 2 --