Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rafael ZAMUDIO-DURAN, a.k.a. Oscar Zamudio-Duran, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-27
Citations: 558 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 12-10435
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rafael ZAMUDIO-DURAN, a.k.a. Oscar Zamudio-Duran, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 769–769

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rafael ZAMUDIO-DURAN, a.k.a. Oscar Zamudio-Duran, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10435.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 27, 2014.
Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tara Kristine Hoveland, South Lake Tahoe, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Oscar Rafael Zamudio-Duran, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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 Rafael Zamudio-Duran appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i), (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Zamudio-Du-ran'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 Zamudio-Duran the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Zamudio-Duran has 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.