Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David D. ESPINAL, aka Dirk Diggler, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-27
Citations: 272 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 07-10204
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David D. ESPINAL, aka Dirk Diggler, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David D. ESPINAL, aka Dirk Diggler, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10204.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 27, 2008.
Jonathan M.F. Loo, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David D. Espinal, Honolulu, HI, pro se.
Georgia K. McMillen, Esq., Wailuku Maui, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David D. Espinal appeals from his 190-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to engage in money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Espi-nal'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 the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We dismiss the appeal 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 provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.