United States of America v. Ramon Carreno-Ochoa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAMON CARRENO-OCHOA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10035
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00742-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Carreno-Ochoa appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for assault of a federal
officer resulting in bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a) and (b), 1114.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Carreno-Ochoa’s counsel
* 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
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10035
has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. Carreno-Ochoa has filed a pro se supplemental
brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Carreno-Ochoa 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.
We decline to address on direct appeal Carreno-Ochoa’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 --