Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-21
Citations: 63 F. App'x 989
Docket Number: No. 02-10224
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 989–990

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-10224.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2003.
Decided May 21, 2003.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leslie Matthews appeals her 51-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 2. Matthews' counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Matthews has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government did not file an answering brief.
Based upon our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude that Matthews was sentenced within the terms of her plea agreement and has knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182-83 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1270-72 (9th Cir.1998). We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See United States v. Vences, 169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1999).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel of record is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.