United States of America v. Fernando Ramirez-Mendoza, a.k.a. Fernando M. Ramirez, a.k.a. Jesus Ramirez

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FERNANDO RAMIREZ-MENDOZA,
a.k.a. Fernando M. Ramirez, a.k.a. Jesus
Ramirez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50251
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01276-ODW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Ramirez-Mendoza appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and
12-month and 1-day sentence for being an illegal alien in possession of firearms, in
FILED
SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50251 2
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Ramirez-Mendoza’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no
grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have
provided Ramirez-Mendoza the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No
pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Ramirez-Mendoza waived his 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 five specified issues related to his sentence. 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 Ramirez-Mendoza’s plea or
any sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm
as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid
appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --