Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0307-01.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. Alejandro Munoz GALVAN, a.k.a. Abel Lemus, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10513
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 22, 2018
    Richard J. Bender, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC — Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Alejandro Munoz Galvan, Pro Se
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Munoz Galvan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 196-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), 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. Galvan has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Galvan 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.

To the extent that Galvan seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address this issue on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

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.