Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-04
Citations: 369 F. App'x 791
Docket Number: No. 07-10576
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 791–791

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10576.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 4, 2010.
Amber M. Craig, Esq. USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rene L. Valladares, Esq., FPDNV-Fed-eral Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Patrick Johnson appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute — cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Johnson'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. He has filed a supplemental brief, but no 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. Johnson's request to strike the Anders brief and appoint new counsel is DENIED. 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.