Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christian Paul DIARTE-VAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-17
Citations: 331 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 08-10291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christian Paul DIARTE-VAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christian Paul DIARTE-VAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10291.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
Filed Aug. 17, 2009.
Celeste Benita Corlett, Assistant U.S., Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arthur J. Hutton, Law Office of Arthur J. Hutton, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Christian Paul Diarte-Vazquez, Taft, CA, pro se.
Before KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Christian Paul Diarte-Vazquez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and two concurrent 60-month sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii), and 846, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Diarte-Vazquez'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.