Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelio Mata ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-22
Citations: 542 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: No. 12-10228
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelio Mata ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelio Mata ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10228.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
Aaron David Wegner, Assistant U.S., Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Cornelio Mata Espinoza, Oakland, CA, pro se.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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
Cornelio Mata Espinoza appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 250-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i), and (b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Espinoza's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Espinoza has filed pro se supplemental opening and reply briefs, and the government has filed an answering brief.
Espinoza 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.