Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Trinidad PEREZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-19
Citations: 479 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 11-10513
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Trinidad PEREZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Trinidad PEREZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10513.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 19, 2012.
Cory Michael Picton, Esquire, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Harriette P. Levitt, Law Offices of Har-riette P. Levitt, Tucson, AZ, for Defen-danb-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Manuel Trinidad Perez-Romero appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Perez- Romero'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 Perez-Romero 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, 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.