Case ID: f-appx_468/html/0809-02.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. Manuel de Jesus RUAN-ROCHIN, a.k.a. Manuel Ruan-Rochin, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10580.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Ustu-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kathleen Genevieve Williamson, Esquire, Williamson & Young, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel de Jesus Ruan-Rochin appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute approximately 1,601 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(vii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ruan-Rochin’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 the appellant with 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, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

The motion to file a corrected brief is granted. The amended brief received on December 2, 2011, is deemed filed.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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