Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YONGCAI LI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-14
Citations: 421 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 10-50057
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YONGCAI LI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 699–699

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YONGCAI LI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50057.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 14, 2011.
Wesley Liu Hsu, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Yongcai Li, Post, TX, pro se.
Kenneth M. Stern, Esquire, Kenneth M. Stern Law Offices, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, 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
Yongcai Li appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for trafficking in counterfeit goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Li'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 the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.