Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino Antonio MURALLES-OLIVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-15
Citations: 375 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 09-10158
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino Antonio MURALLES-OLIVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino Antonio MURALLES-OLIVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10158.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 15, 2010.
Pamela Martin, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mary Beth Gardner, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Marino Antonio Muralles-Oliva appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 100-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(D). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Muralles-Oliva'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, but the government has not 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.