Court Opinion

ID: 2647808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-12-30 21:03:13.656026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:31.078099
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 30 2013

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-10424

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00128-PMP

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
RICHARD VALDEZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                      Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 17, 2013**

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

       Richard Valdez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a

felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and

924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Valdez’s

          *
             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).
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 has waived his right to appeal his 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                                     12-10424