Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0460-01.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. Mario Gonzalez Rubio GARCIA, a.k.a. Hugo Ortiz, a.k.a. Johnny, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30187.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 13, 2012.
    Jeffrey Backhus, Assistant U.S., Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Matthew H. Thomas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Eric Hultman, Hultman Law Office, Kirkland, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Mario Gonzalez Rubio Garcia, pro se.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, 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

Mario Gonzalez Rubio Garcia appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i), (a)(l)(B)(i), and (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia’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 Garcia with 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss 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.

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