FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2013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. 12-30151
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00055-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JUVENAL SANCHEZ-ISLAS, a.k.a. Juan
Carlos Andrade-Gomez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013 **
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juvenal Sanchez-Islas appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 180-month sentence for conspiracy to
distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and
conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
*
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(b)(1)(A), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Sanchez-Islas’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,
along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Sanchez-Islas has filed a
pro se supplemental opening brief. The government has not filed an answering
brief. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Sanchez-Islas’s
conviction. We accordingly affirm his conviction.
Sanchez-Islas waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record
discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss
Sanchez-Islas’s appeal of his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974,
986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
We decline to address Sanchez-Islas’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and his legal
representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that he
obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255; United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-30151