                                                                           FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 27 2014

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



                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10003

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-02310-DGC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERCEDES SALAZAR-
VALENZUELA,

               Defendant - Appellant.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 18, 2014**

Before:        ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Mercedes Salazar-Valenzuela appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 210-month sentence for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.


          *
             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).
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Salazar-Valenzuela’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 Salazar-Valenzuela the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief.

No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Salazar-Valenzuela has waived her right to appeal her 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.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.




                                          2                                    13-10003
