Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin SALDANA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-21
Citations: 512 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 11-50188
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin SALDANA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 727–727

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin SALDANA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50188.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 21, 2013.
Steve Miller, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William R. Burgener, Law Office of William R. Burgener, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Martin Saldana-Vasquez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Saldana-Vasquez'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 Saldana-Vasquez 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.