USA V. SESAR COVARRUBIAS-ARELLANO, No. 20-10123 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 29 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-10123 D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00555-MTL-1 MEMORANDUM* SESAR ASUNCION COVARRUBIASARELLANO, AKA Sesar Covarrubias, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 26, 2020** Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Sesar Asuncion Covarrubias-Arellano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and time-served sentence, to be followed by 36 months of supervised release, for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 * 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). (1967), Covarrubias-Arellano’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The court did not provide Covarrubias-Arellano an opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief because he was removed from the United States on March 26, 2020, and the parties were unable to provide a mailing address for him. No answering brief has been filed. Covarrubias-Arellano 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 20-10123

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.