Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose GARCIA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 377 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 08-50262
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose GARCIA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose GARCIA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50262.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 21, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, Robert Charles Stacy, II, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Johns, Esquire, Johns & Al-lyn, APC A Professional Corporation, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Garcia-Lopez appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (B)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia-Lopez'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.