USA V. PABLO CHINO-DOVAL, No. 17-10545 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-10545 D.C. No. 2:17-cr-01296-DLR v. MEMORANDUM* PABLO CHINO-DOVAL, a.k.a. Pablo Chino, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Pablo Chino-Doval appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Chino-Doval’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are * 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). no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Chino-Doval the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Chino-Doval 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 (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 the appeal. See id. at 988. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 17-10545

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.