Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique CHAVEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-04
Citations: 298 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 07-30059
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique CHAVEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 633–633

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique CHAVEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30059.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Vincent T. Lombardi, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Charles A. Johnston, Esq., Felker, Lazares & Johnston, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. 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
Enrique Chavez-Hernandez appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Chavez-Hernandez'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 an 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.