Court Opinion

ID: 614624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-10-04 00:03:07+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:30.710605
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 03 2011

                                                                         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. 08-50235

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00432-FMC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
JOHN PETER YUNKA,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                  Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted September 27, 2011 **

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

       John Peter Yunka appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month

sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and mail fraud, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Yunka’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief,

          *
             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).
along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the

appellant 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, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the defendant’s

conviction. We dismiss the appeal of the sentence in light of the valid appeal

waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the appeal of the sentence is

DISMISSED.

                                          2                                      08-50235