Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel ALBARENGA HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-02
Citations: 351 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 08-50218
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel ALBARENGA HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 351
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel ALBARENGA HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50218.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Nov. 2, 2009.
Scott M. Garringer, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wayne Richard Young, Law Office of Wayne R. Young, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Manuel Albarenga Hernandez, Bradford, PA, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, 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 Alb arenga Hernandez appeals from the 146-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 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), Hernandez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.
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.