Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-16
Citations: 486 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 11-10435
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 637–637

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10435.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
Patrick Michael Walsh, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mario D. Valencia, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Gustavo Sanchez, Taft, CA, pro se.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Gustavo Sanchez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 87-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sanchez'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 Sanchez with 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, 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. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir.2009).
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.