Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-02
Citations: 507 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 11-10548
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 507
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10548.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 2, 2013.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., United States District Court, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jaime Juarez, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
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
Jaime Juarez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 84-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 892.60 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii); and 846; and possession with intent to distribute 892.60 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(vii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Juarez's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Juarez 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.