Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roxanna JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-07
Citations: 361 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 08-10117
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roxanna JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roxanna JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10117.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 7, 2010.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Celeste Benita Corlett, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Eric J. McNeilus, Sr., Heurlin Sherlock Panahi, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Roxanna Jimenez appeals from her guilty-plea conviction and 121-month sentence for importation of approximately 36 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 960(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(ii) and possession with intent to distribute approximately 36 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(l)(A)(ii)(II). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jimenez'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.