Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito Millan CARLOS, a.k.a. Benito Carlos Millan, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 399 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 06-50707
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito Millan CARLOS, a.k.a. Benito Carlos Millan, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito Millan CARLOS, a.k.a. Benito Carlos Millan, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50707.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
Michael L. Stern, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Fredricco Mccurry, Esq., Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Benito Millan Carlos appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Carlos'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.