Court Opinion

ID: 9965117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 18:00:41.498163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:44.508758
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-2653
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:22-cr-00707-MTL-1
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DANIEL PERALTA VENTURA,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Daniel Peralta Ventura appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(B)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Peralta

      *
             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).
Ventura’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 Peralta

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

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Peralta Ventura 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.

      We remand the case to the district court with instructions to correct the

written judgment to reflect the correct statutory citation for the offense of

conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

                                         2                                      23-2653