Court Opinion

ID: 614555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-10-01 00:05:55+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:30.452915
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 30 2011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. 10-10341

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01050-SRB

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ALEJANDRO VERDUGO-FELIX,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted September 27, 2011 **

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

       Alejandro Verdugo-Felix appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and

78-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or

more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 846.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Verdugo-Felix’s counsel

          *
             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).
has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, 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 on direct appeal. We

dismiss 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.

      DISMISSED.

                                           2                                        10-10341