Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 08-30187
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and NR SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 395–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30187.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Matthew F. Duggan, Ronald W. Skibbie, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terence Michael Ryan, Terence Ryan Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant Appellant.
Mario Garcia, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and NR SMITH, 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
Mario Garcia appeals from his the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia'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. Garcia's request for new counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.