Court Opinion

ID: 9374690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 19:00:35.333021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.461246
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10132

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00196-TLN-3

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MARTA JIMINEZ LOPEZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Marta Jiminez Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 189-month sentence for conspiracy to

distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

      *
             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).
738 (1967), Jiminez Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Jiminez Lopez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro

se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Jiminez Lopez waived her right to appeal her 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                                   22-10132