Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Mendoza CUEVAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-01
Citations: 441 F. App'x 471
Docket Number: No. 09-10009
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Mendoza CUEVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 471–471

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Mendoza CUEVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10009.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed July 1, 2011.
John Robert Lopez, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Florence Bruemmer, Law Offices of Florence M. Bruemmer, PC, Anthem, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Javier Mendoza Cuevas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 144-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to cultivate more than 1000 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(vii), and (b)(5). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Mendoza Cue-vas'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 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, 80-81, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.