Case ID: f-appx_632/html/0360-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAO ZHONG WANG, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10026.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2016.
    Russell Henry Lorflng, Assistant U.S., USNMI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sai-pan, MP, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bao Zhong Wang, McRae Helena, GA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bao Zhong Wang appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Wang’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Wang filed two pro se letters, which we treat as Wang’s pro se supplemental. brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Wang 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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.

To the extent that Wang seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address this issue on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.