Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0709-01.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. Rudy MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10675.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Decided Nov. 26, 2014.
    Amie Danielle Rooney, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorneys Office, San Jose, CA, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Richard Alan Tamor, Tamor & Tamor, San Francisco, CA, for D efendant-App el-lant.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. 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

Rudy Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 140-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii); and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(i). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Martinez’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 Martinez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Martinez has 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.