Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Magdalena SANTANA RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-14
Citations: 421 F. App'x 715
Docket Number: No. 08-50351
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Magdalena SANTANA RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 715–716

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Magdalena SANTANA RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50351.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 14, 2011.
Jeff P. Mitchell, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Kenneth M. Stern, Esquire, Law Offices of Kenneth M. Stern, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Magdalena Santana Ramirez, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
Magdalena Santana Ramirez appeals from her guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ramirez's 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 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.