Court Opinion

ID: 6343930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-25 20:00:32.719773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:19.106851
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 25 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    21-10234

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                1:18-cr-00044-DAD-BAM-1
 v.

LINDA ROSE EXPOSE,                              MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Linda Rose Expose appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for aggravated

identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Expose’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

      *
             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).
there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Expose the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

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

      Expose 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                                   21-10234