Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas GONZALEZ ROLDAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-31
Citations: 372 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 08-30307
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas GONZALEZ ROLDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas GONZALEZ ROLDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30307.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 31, 2010.
Aaron Nicholas Lucoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leo Griffard, Leo N. Griffard, Boise, ID, Tomas Gonzalez Roldan, White Deer, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Tomas Gonzalez Roldan appeals from his jury-trial conviction and concurrent 120-month sentences for conspiracy and attempted distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(A), 846; and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(A), (b)(1)(A).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gonzalez Roldan'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 has been filed, however the government has filed an answering brief.
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, Roldan's pro se motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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.