Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose De Jesus GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-27
Citations: 397 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 09-30089
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose De Jesus GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 334–334

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose De Jesus GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
Thomas John Hopkins, Special Assistant U.S., Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S., USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dan Bruce Johnson, Dan B. Johnson, P.S., Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose De Jesus Garcia, pro se.
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
Jose De Jesus Garcia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month concurrent sentence for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(ii), and § 1956(a)(1) and (h).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia'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 considered the claims raised by Garcia in his pro se supplemental opening brief submitted on March 24, 2010. We have further considered the government's answering brief and Garcia's pro se reply brief.
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.