USA V. J. PANIAGUA-VIEYRA, No. 17-10552 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-10552 D.C. No. 2:17-cr-01268-SPL v. MEMORANDUM* J. MARCOS PANIAGUA-VIEYRA, a.k.a. Marcontoni Paniagua, a.k.a. Juan Marco Paniagua-Vieyra, a.k.a. Juan Marcos Paniagua-Vieyra, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. J. Marcos Paniagua-Vieyra appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 12-month sentence for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 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), Paniagua-Vieyra’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 Paniagua-Vieyra the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Paniagua-Vieyra 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. We remand the case to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect the correct offense of conviction, attempted reentry of a removed alien. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 2 17-10552

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.