Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil Edward GRANT, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 463 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 10-50181
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil Edward GRANT, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 695–696

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil Edward GRANT, III, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50181.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
Mark Childs, Esquire, Christopher Lui, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Robison D. Harley, Jr., Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Virgil Edward Grant, III, San Pedro, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Virgil Edward Grant, III, appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 72-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute 100 or more kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Grant'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 appellant 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.