Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0590-01.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. Alonso JEFFERSON, a/k/a Puppet, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50024.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed June 7, 2010.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Timothy J. Sea-right, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William C. Melcher, Esq., Melcher Mel-cher & Melcher, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

We hereby recall the mandate issued on April 4, 2010. The memorandum disposition filed on March 31, 2010, is withdrawn, and a replacement memorandum disposition is filed contemporaneously with this order. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

MEMORANDUM

Alonso Jefferson appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to manufacture, to aid and abet the manufacture of, and to possess with intent to distribute phencycli-dine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jefferson’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, but no answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.