USA V. EDGAR RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, No. 20-10037 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 20-10037 20-10038 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:19-cr-50149-JAS-BGM-1 4:19-cr-01926-JAS-BGM-1 v. EDGAR RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Edgar Ramirez-Martinez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 54-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and partially concurrent 12-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). California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ramirez-Martinez’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 Ramirez-Martinez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief in these direct appeals. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED. 2 20-10037 & 20-10038

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.