Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Berel David STOLWORTHY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 16-10376
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Berel David STOLWORTHY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 695–695

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Berel David STOLWORTHY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10376
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 17, 2017
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Berel David Stolworthy, Pro Se
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, 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
Berel David Stolworthy appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 136-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Stolworthy'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 Stolworthy the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Stolworthy waived his right to appeal his conviction and 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.