Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Romero RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-19
Citations: 657 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 15-10287
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Romero RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 657
Pages: 720–720

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Romero RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10287
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 13, 2016
Filed September 19, 2016
Heather Sechrist, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Erica Leigh Seger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Thomas Romero Ruiz, Pro Se
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Thomas Romero Ruiz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his jury-trial convictions and 56-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ruiz's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Ruiz 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.