USA V. MIGUEL ALEMAN-GARCIA, No. 18-10332 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10332 D.C. No. 4:15-cr-01691-JGZ-LAB-1 v. MIGUEL ALEMAN-GARCIA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2019** Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Miguel Aleman-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-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), Aleman-Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there * 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). are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Aleman-Garcia the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Aleman-Garcia 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 except as to standard conditions five, six, and fifteen, which are unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 133 (2018); see also Watson, 582 F.3d at 977 (an appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge to a supervised release condition). We remand to the district court to modify these conditions consistent with Evans. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED; REMANDED with instructions. 2 18-10332

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.