                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 24 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-10053

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00080-GMS-2

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
HECTOR ALFONSO NIEBLAS-
PACHECO,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before:      FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Hector Alfonso Nieblas-Pacheco appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 180-month sentence for conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. Pursuant to


      *
             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).
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Nieblas-Pacheco’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 Nieblas-Pacheco the opportunity to file a

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

been filed.

      Nieblas-Pacheco 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.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.




                                          2                                   19-10053
