UNITED STATES v. RANGEL VILLA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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.

FOOTNOTES

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).