Court Opinion

ID: 4161632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-19 20:04:11.05004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:58.583091
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               APR 19 2017

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   16-10341

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00221-GMN

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
DAVID SALGADO,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                     Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before:      GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      David Salgado appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his

guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii), and 846.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Salgado’s counsel has filed

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

as counsel of record. We have provided Salgado the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

         Salgado 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

(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.

                                           2                                   16-10341