UNITED STATES v. LOZANO PEREZ (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Diego Alonso Lozano Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lozano Perez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Lozano Perez has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief, and the government has filed an answering brief. Lozano Perez’s motion to file a late reply brief is granted. The Clerk will file the reply brief received at Docket Entry No. 31.

Lozano Perez waived the right to appeal his sentence. The record does not disclose any arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Lozano Perez’s argument in his pro se brief, any violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by the district court did not amount to plain error. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (to show that a district court committed plain error under Rule 11, a defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea”). Lozano Perez’s remaining pro se arguments are covered by the valid waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss Lozano Perez’s appeal. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.