Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Armando CRUZ-GALVAN, a.k.a. Armando, a.k.a. Luis Armando Cruz, a.k.a. Panda, a.k.a. Kung Fu Panda, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-14
Citations: 695 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 15-10227
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Armando CRUZ-GALVAN, a.k.a. Armando, a.k.a. Luis Armando Cruz, a.k.a. Panda, a.k.a. Kung Fu Panda, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Armando CRUZ-GALVAN, a.k.a. Armando, a.k.a. Luis Armando Cruz, a.k.a. Panda, a.k.a. Kung Fu Panda, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10227
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 14, 2017
Jeffrey Ryan Borup, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Luis Armando Cruz-Galvan, Pro Se
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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
Luis Armando Cruz-Galvan appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 121-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii), and 846, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Cruz-Galvan's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Cruz-Galvan has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Cruz-Galvan waived his right to appeal his conviction, sentence, and the order of forfeiture. 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 motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.