Court Opinion

ID: 218440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-06-09 00:02:17+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:36.112785
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 08 2011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. 10-30027

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00240-BLW

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
IVAN OSVALDO VEGA,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Idaho
                  B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 24, 2011 **

Before:        PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Ivan Osvaldo Vega appeals from his conviction and 92-month sentence

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to

distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18

U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vega’s counsel

          *
             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).
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 has 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                                        10-30027