Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0661-02.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. Sergio RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Edgar Carlon, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50345.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 18, 2012.
    Amanda Liskamm, Assistant U.S., Christopher Lui, Assistant U.S., J. Lana Morton-Owens, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., AUSAOffice of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Wayne Richard Young, Law Office of Wayne R. Young, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Ramirez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 148-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A); possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A); and maintaining a drug involved premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ramirez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Ramirez with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Ramirez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. 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.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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