Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nita Almuete Paddit PALMA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-19
Citations: 474 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 10-50120
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nita Almuete Paddit PALMA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nita Almuete Paddit PALMA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50120.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 19, 2012.
Steven Arkow, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sherwin Carl Edelberg, Claire Navarro Espina, Law Offices of Edelberg & Espi-na, Tarzana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Nita Almuete Paddit Palma appeals from her jury-trial conviction and 42-month sentence for two counts of illegal remunerations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(l)(A).. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Palma'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 Palma 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.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.