Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lamont WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Christopher Williams, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-23
Citations: 468 F. App'x 800
Docket Number: No. 10-10535
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lamont WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Christopher Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 800–801

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lamont WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Christopher Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10535.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gail Gianasi Natale, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Christopher Lamont Williams appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Williams'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.