Case ID: f-appx_228/html/0737-01.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. SEAL 1, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10217.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007 .
    Filed April 19, 2007.
    John Joseph Tuchi, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., Esq., Rosenquist & Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant appeals from her guilty-plea conviction and sentence.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), appellant’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The Government did not file an answering brief.

We have reviewed the briefs and conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (appeal waiver valid when entered into knowingly and voluntarily).

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.