UNITED STATES v. HAMILTON (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Vaudencia Ceballos Hamilton appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and methamphetamine resulting in serious bodily injury and death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hamilton’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Hamilton has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief, and the government has filed a motion to dismiss.

Hamilton 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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). Hamilton’s pro se argument that the waiver is unenforceable because she received ineffective assistance of counsel is unavailing; hers is not one of the “unusual cases” in which we may review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). We accordingly GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. See id. at 1260.

Hamilton’s pro se motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is denied as moot, and her request for oral argument is DENIED. The government’s motion to submit a sealed document is GRANTED. The Clerk will file under seal the plea agreement at Docket Entry No. 26-2, and publicly the motion at Docket Entry No. 26-1.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.