Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ALVIDREZ-UBANDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-23
Citations: 470 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 11-10146
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ALVIDREZ-UBANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ALVIDREZ-UBANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10146.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
Amber Marie Craig, Assistant U.S., USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Mario D. Valencia, Esquire, Mario D. Valencia, Attorney at Law, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Jose Alvidrez-Ubanda appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Alvidrez-Ubanda'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 the appellant 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, 80-81, 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.