Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pablo ANDRADE-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-18
Citations: 97 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 03-10446; D.C. No. CR-02-00281-PMP
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Pablo ANDRADE-MENDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Pablo ANDRADE-MENDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-10446.
D.C. No. CR-02-00281-PMP.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 18, 2004.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding.
Pamela A. Martin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Juan Pablo Andrade-Mendez, North Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Robert M. Draskovich, Robert M. Draskovieh, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Pablo Andrade-Mendez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(viii) and (B)(viii).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Andrade-Mendez has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No supplemental pro se brief was filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief. Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.