Case ID: f-appx_651/html/0581-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe MARTINEZ PAREDES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10390
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED May 31, 2016
    Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the US' Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Noe Martinez Paredes, Pro Se.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Noe Martinez Paredes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Martinez Paredes’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 Martinez Paredes the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

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 grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.