Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pablo HERNANDEZ-ROMO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-20
Citations: 652 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 15-10454
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pablo HERNANDEZ-ROMO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 652
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pablo HERNANDEZ-ROMO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10454
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 20, 2016
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU — Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Juan Pablo Hernandez-Romo, Great Plains Correctional Facility, Hinton, OK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Juan Pablo Hernandez-Romo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Romo's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Hernandez-Romo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Hernandez-Romo waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.
Counsel's amended 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.