Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alan PINEDA, a.k.a. Juan Antonio Burgos-Skerrett, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-15
Citations: 421 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 10-10218
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alan PINEDA, a.k.a. Juan Antonio Burgos-Skerrett, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 735–735

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alan PINEDA, a.k.a. Juan Antonio Burgos-Skerrett, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10218.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 15, 2011.
Jeffrey David Nedrow, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Lupe Martinez, Esquire, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, 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
Jose Alan Pineda appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 108-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Pineda'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 have 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.