Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-19
Citations: 688 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 16-10341
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 435–435

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10341
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 19, 2017
Susan Cushman, Assistant Ú.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE— Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Mario D. Valencia, Esquire, Attorney, Mario D. Valencia, Attorney At Law, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant
David Salgado, Pro Se
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
David Salgado appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(viii), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sal-gado's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Salgado the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Salgado waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 76, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.