22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T535,MEMORANDUM 2 Raul Arrellanes appeals his guilty plea conviction and 120-month sentence imposed for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Arrellanes’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for review and seeking to withdraw as counsel of record. Arrellanes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Counsel references the potential issue of whether the district court erred when it denied Arrellanes’ pre-plea suppression motion of post-arrest statements. The district court’s decision to deny this motion, however, is unreviewable because Arrellanes entered a valid, unconditional guilty plea. United States v. Floyd, 108 F.3d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1997). Our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no other issues requiring review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. . This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T550,

MEMORANDUM 2

Raul Arrellanes appeals his guilty plea conviction and 120-month sentence imposed for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Arrellanes’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for review and seeking to withdraw as counsel of record. Arrellanes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel references the potential issue of whether the district court erred when it denied Arrellanes’ pre-plea suppression motion of post-arrest statements. The district court’s decision to deny this motion, however, is unreviewable because Arrellanes entered a valid, unconditional guilty plea. United States v. Floyd, 108 F.3d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1997).

Our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no other issues requiring review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.