United States of America v. JUAN HERIBERTO MURILLO-MACIAS, AKA Juan Heriberto Murillo Macias

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN HERIBERTO MURILLO-MACIAS,
AKA Juan Heriberto Murillo Macias,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 18-10380
18-10381
D.C. Nos. 4:17-cr-01703-RM-DTF
4:14-cr-00256-RM-DTF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Juan Heriberto Murillo-Macias appeals from
his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and
consecutive 9-month sentence imposed upon revocation. 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
SEP 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10380 & 18-10381
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Murillo-Macias’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 Murillo-Macias the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Murillo-Macias waived his right to appeal his reentry conviction and 30-
month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity
of the waiver, we dismiss appeal no. 18-10380. See United States v. Watson, 582
F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief with respect to the
revocation of supervised release or the sentence imposed upon revocation. We
therefore affirm the judgment in appeal no. 18-10381.
Appellee’s motion for leave to file its late letter is GRANTED.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Appeal No. 18-10380 DISMISSED; Appeal No. 18-10381 AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --