Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra ANDRADE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-02
Citations: 584 F. App'x 880
Docket Number: No. 13-50313
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra ANDRADE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 880–881

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra ANDRADE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50313.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
Filed Oct. 2, 2014.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., William A. Crowfoot, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sandra Andrade, Dublin, CA, pro se.
Diane E. Berley, Diane E. Berley, Attorney at Law, West Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, 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
Sandra Andrade appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month, 1-day sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to structure financial transactions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Andrade'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 Andrade 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.