NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 9 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-30131

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00086-DCN-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
VAUDENCIA CEBALLOS HAMILTON,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                     David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      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



      *
             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).
Anders v. California, 

(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, 

, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 

, 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, 

, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). We accordingly

GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. See

      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.


                                          2                                   19-30131