United States of America v. DIEGO ALONSO LOZANO PEREZ, AKA Diego Lozano, AKA Diego A. Lozano, AKA Diego Alonso…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DIEGO ALONSO LOZANO PEREZ, AKA
Diego Lozano, AKA Diego A. Lozano,
AKA Diego Alonso Lozano, AKA Diego
Lozano Perez, AKA Diego Alonso Lozano-
Perez, AKA Diego Perez, AKA Diego
Alonzo Perez, AKA Diego Perez Lozano,
AKA Diego Alonso Perez-Lozano,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10377
D.C. No.
1:17-cr-00007-LJO-SKO-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Diego Alonso Lozano Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
* 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
AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10377
challenges the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lozano
Perez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along
with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Lozano Perez has filed a pro se
supplemental opening brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.
Lozano Perez’s motion to file a late reply brief is granted. The Clerk will file the
reply brief received at Docket Entry No. 31.
Lozano Perez waived the right to appeal his sentence. The record does not
disclose any arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Lozano Perez’s
argument in his pro se brief, any violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11 by the district court did not amount to plain error. See United States v.
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004) (to show that a district court
committed plain error under Rule 11, a defendant must show “a reasonable
probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea”). Lozano
Perez’s remaining pro se arguments are covered by the valid waiver. Accordingly,
we dismiss Lozano Perez’s appeal. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --