Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0235-01.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. Luis Armando CRUZ-GALVAN, a.k.a. Armando, a.k.a. Luis Armando Cruz, a.k.a. Panda, a.k.a. Kung Fu Panda, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10227
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 14, 2017
    Jeffrey Ryan Borup, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Luis Armando Cruz-Galvan, Pro Se
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Armando Cruz-Galvan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 121-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii), and 846, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Cruz-Galvan’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Cruz-Galvan has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Cruz-Galvan waived his right to appeal his conviction, sentence, and the order of forfeiture. 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.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.