Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zasha BOTELHO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-01
Citations: 249 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: No. 06-10563
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zasha BOTELHO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 645–645

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zasha BOTELHO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10563.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Oct. 1, 2007.
Beverly Wee Sameshima, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Deanna S. Dotson, Esq., Kapolei, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Zasha Botelho appeals from the district court's judgment and 240-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Botelho's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, but appellee has filed an answering brief.
We have reviewed the briefs, and conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We affirm the conviction, and dismiss the appeal of the sentence 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.
Conviction AFFIRMED; Appeal of sentence DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.