Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Medina MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-18
Citations: 443 F. App'x 301
Docket Number: No. 09-10115
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Medina MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Medina MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10115.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 18, 2011.
Jason Hitt, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Javier Medina Marquez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 105-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine (actual), 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), Marquez'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 the appellant 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, 80-81, 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.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.