Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar David AVILA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-27
Citations: 700 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 16-50378
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar David AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar David AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50378
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 27, 2017
Karla Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Oscar David Avila, Pro Se
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Oscar David Avila appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Avila'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 Avila the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Avila waived his right to appeal his 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.