Court Opinion

ID: 2812720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-29 20:01:38.099633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:58.251200
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 29 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10533

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-02492-DGC

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
YSIDRO JUAN VALDEZ, a.k.a. Ysidro
Valdez,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted June 22, 2015**

Before:        HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

      Ysidro Juan Valdez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

          *
             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).
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Valdez’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

Valdez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental

brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Valdez waived his right to appeal his 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                                   13-10533