Court Opinion

ID: 212464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-16 00:02:39+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:48.410596
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               MAR 15 2011

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-10218

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 5:09-cr-01045-JF

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
JOSE ALAN PINEDA, a.k.a. Juan
Antonio Burgos-Skerrett,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                     Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted March 8, 2011 **

Before:        FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Jose Alan Pineda appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 108-month

sentence for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine

hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Pineda’s counsel has filed a brief

stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel

of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se

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

filed.

         Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss 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.

         DISMISSED.

                                          2                                     10-10218