Case ID: f-appx_373/html/0672-01.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. Juan TAPIA-QUINTERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10519.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed April 1, 2010.
    John Robert Lopez, Kevin Michael Rapp, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USPX— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Nancy Hinchcliffe, Phoenix, AZ, Juan Tapia-Quintero, Big Spring, TX, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Tapia-Quintero appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and aggregate 230-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and possession or use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Tapia-Quintero’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.

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.