USA V. JOSE LOPEZ-ACOSTA, No. 15-10014 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 25 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 15-10014 15-10015 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:14-cr-00957-DLR 2:14-cr-50131-DLR v. JOSE LUIS LOPEZ-ACOSTA, a.k.a. Jose Luis Acosta, a.k.a. Jose Luis LopezArellanes, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2016** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Jose Luis Lopez-Acosta appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and * 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). concurrent 22-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lopez-Acosta’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 Lopez-Acosta the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Lopez-Acosta waived the right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 these appeals. See id. at 988. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 15-10014 & 15-10015

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.