Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peggy Sue Liendo VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-28
Citations: 459 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 10-50362
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Peggy Sue Liendo VELASQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 687–687

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Peggy Sue Liendo VELASQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50362.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
Filed Nov. 28, 2011.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Justin Randall Rhoades, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Wendy T. Wu, Assistant U.S., Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Peggy Sue Liendo Velasquez, Dublin, CA, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, 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
Peggy Sue Liendo Velasquez appeals from her guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Velasquez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
In her pro se supplemental brief, Velasquez contends that her trial counsel was ineffective, and also challenges the amount of drugs attributed to her.
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. We decline to address Velasquez's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and her legal representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that she obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) ("Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.").
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.