Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0342-01.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. Otoniel Galindo VASQUEZ-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Becerro, a.k.a. Yusniel Lopez-Vasquez, a.k.a. Galvino Vasquez-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10176.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
    Kristen Jennifer Brook, Assistant U.S., Lisa E. Jennis, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lynn T. Hamilton, Esquire, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Otoniel Galindo Vasquez-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 174-month sentence for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h), and concurrent 120-month sentence for conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), (v)(I). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Vasquez-Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Vasquez-Lopez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Vasquez-Lopez 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.

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.