Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar VALDEZ-SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-01
Citations: 328 F. App'x 448
Docket Number: No. 07-10156
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar VALDEZ-SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 448–449

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar VALDEZ-SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10156.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 01, 2009.
Phillip A. Talbert, Esq. Fax, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Ward, Esq., Law Offices of John Ward, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cesar Valdez-Santos appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 207-month sentence for possession and distribution of a listed chemical with knowledge, and having reason to believe, that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Valdez-Santos' counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with 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, 80-81, 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 judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.