Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mercedes SALAZAR-VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-27
Citations: 558 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 13-10003
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mercedes SALAZAR-VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mercedes SALAZAR-VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10003.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 27, 2014.
Mark S. Kokanovieh, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mercedes Salazar-Valenzuela, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Mercedes Salazar-Valenzuela appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 210-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Pursu ant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Salazar-Valenzuela'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 Salazar-Valenzuela the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Salazar-Valenzuela has waived her right to appeal her conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.