Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Jerome HILLS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-11
Citations: 285 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 07-50150
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Jerome HILLS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 453–453

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Jerome HILLS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50150.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 11, 2008.
Julie J. Shemitz, Esq., Michael J. Raphael, Esq., for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jonathan Jerome Hills appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 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. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental 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 as to appellant's conviction. We dismiss the appeal of the sentence 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.
The conviction is AFFIRMED and the appeal of the sentence is DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.