Court Opinion

ID: 810281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-10-16 20:04:42+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:37.452355
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 16 2012

                                                                        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. 11-10435

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00478-JCM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
GUSTAVO SANCHEZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                     James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted October 9, 2012 **

Before:        RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       Gustavo Sanchez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 87-month

sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

          *
             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).
(1967), Sanchez’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 Sanchez

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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d

974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.

                                           2                                    11-10435