Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-11
Citations: 568 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: No. 13-50080
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 508–508

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50080.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014.
Filed April 11, 2014.
Rebecca Suzanne Kanter, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Esquire, Lexington, KY, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jonathan Rojas, Sonoma, CA, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jonathan Rojas appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rojas'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 Rojas the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Rojas has waived the 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.