Court Opinion

ID: 3054551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-13 23:54:58.240283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:57.803293
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 21 2011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. 10-10554

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00317-FJM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
WAINE EDWARD VASSEL, a.k.a.
Harper,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                   Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 19, 2011 **

Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

       Waine Edward Vassel appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 108-

month sentence imposed for possession with the intent to deliver marijuana, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). Pursuant to Anders

          *
             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).
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vassel’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 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                                    10-10554