Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome SUMRAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 217 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 05-10509
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome SUMRAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome SUMRAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10509.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
Chris A. Thomas, Office of the U.S. Attorney, PJKK Federal Building, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard T. Pafundi, Esq., Office of Richard T. Pafundi Attorney at Law, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jerome Sumral appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Sumral has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-88, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that Sumral knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.