Opinion
21-10234
05-25-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LINDA ROSE EXPOSE, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 17, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00044-DAD-BAM-1
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Linda Rose Expose appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Expose'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 Expose the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Expose 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.
[*] 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).