                                                                           FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAY 17 2013

                                                                        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. 11-10612

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00320-MCE

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ADAN LOPEZ CRESPO,

               Defendant - Appellant.



                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                  Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 14, 2013 **

Before:        LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

       Adan Lopez Crespo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 102-month sentence for conspiracy to

manufacture at least 1,000 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lopez Crespo’s counsel has

          *
             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).
filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. Lopez Crespo has filed a pro se supplemental brief,

and the government has filed an answering brief.

      Lopez Crespo has 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                                     11-10612
