USA V. ALEJANDRO FLORES ROJAS, No. 16-10472 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 16-10472 16-10473 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:16-cr-00523-NVW 2:14-cr-00802-NVW v. ALEJANDRO FLORES ROJAS, a.k.a. Alejandro Flores-Rojas, a.k.a. Alejandro Rojas Flores, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Alejandro Flores Rojas appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 21-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 11-month * 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). sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Flores Rojas’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 Flores Rojas the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Flores Rojas waived his 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 16-10472 & 16-10473

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.