Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel AVILA-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-06
Citations: 286 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 06-50443
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel AVILA-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 523–523

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel AVILA-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50443.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed Aug. 6, 2008.
Michael J. Raphael, Esq., USLA-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Douglas F. McCormick, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, USSA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karen L. Landau, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manuel Avila-Espinoza appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, 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), Avila-Espinoza'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 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.