Case ID: f-appx_469/html/0536-01.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. Nelson Villegas MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30062.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
    Jeffrey Backhus, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Matthew H. Thomas, Assistant U.S., Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas Michael Kummerow, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nelson Villegas Martinez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Villegas Martinez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Villegas Martinez’s conviction. We dismiss the appeal of the sentence in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the appeal of the sentence is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.