Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin HERNANDEZ-TREJO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-20
Citations: 654 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 15-50157
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin HERNANDEZ-TREJO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 312–313

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin HERNANDEZ-TREJO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50157
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 20, 2016
Andrew James Galvin, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Edwin Hernandez-Trejo, Pro Se
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Edwin Hernandez-Trejo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 66-month sentence for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Trejo'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 Hernandez-Trejo 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.
We grant Hemandez-Trejo's motion to file corrected excerpts of record. The Clerk shall file the excerpts of record submitted on April 29, 2016.
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.