Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-03
Citations: 451 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: No. 10-30230
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Reynaldo MEDINA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 668–669

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Reynaldo MEDINA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-30230.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 3, 2011.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Helge Naber, Naber P.C., Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Reynaldo Medina appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 105-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Medina'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 op portunity 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 as to Medina'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.