Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo MEZA-BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 358 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 07-10540
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo MEZA-BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo MEZA-BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10540.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
John R. Lopez, IV, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patrick E. McGillicuddy, Esquire, Law Offices of Patrick E. McGillicuddy, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Arturo Meza-Beltran, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arturo Meza-Beltran appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(ii).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Meza-Beltran'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 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.