Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Severo Hernandez, a.k.a. Celestino Ayala Perez, a.k.a. Jose Luis Morfin Rodriguez, a.k.a. Severo Hernandez Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-18
Citations: 550 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 11-50410
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Severo Hernandez, a.k.a. Celestino Ayala Perez, a.k.a. Jose Luis Morfin Rodriguez, a.k.a. Severo Hernandez Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Severo Hernandez, a.k.a. Celestino Ayala Perez, a.k.a. Jose Luis Morfin Rodriguez, a.k.a. Severo Hernandez Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50410.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2018.
Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
Carol Alexis Chen, Assistant U.S., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael J. Treman, Esquire, Michael J. Treman Attorney at Law, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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
Jose Luis Rodriguez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 240-month sentence for two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rodriguez's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Rodriguez filed a pro se supplemental opening brief, the government filed an answering brief, and Rodriguez filed a pro se reply brief.
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 decline to address Rodriguez's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.