Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-16
Citations: 447 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 09-10344
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 793–794

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10344.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 16, 2011.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brick P. Storts, III, Esquire, Barton & Storts, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, 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
Ruben Garcia appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importing approximately 9.78 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(l)(B)(ii); and possession with intent to distribute approximately 9.78 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(ii)(II). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia'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. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.