Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0354-01.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. Francisco PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-10225.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
    Russell Marsh, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard Madril, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Padilla appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Padilla has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Padilla filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the appellee filed an answering brief.

After an independent review of the record, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and our review of the briefs filed, we conclude there are no grounds for relief. We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.