Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Navine SHARMA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-23
Citations: 459 F. App'x 626
Docket Number: No. 11-30015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Navine SHARMA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Navine SHARMA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-30015.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
Filed Nov. 23, 2011.
Scott Kerin, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Robert Warren Rainwater, Esquire, Rainwater Law Group, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, 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
Navine Sharma appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 92-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sharma'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 Sharma 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.
Sharma's request for appointment of other counsel is DENIED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.