Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan VERDUSCO-COTA, 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 648
Docket Number: No. 11-10302
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ivan VERDUSCO-COTA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 648–649

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ivan VERDUSCO-COTA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10302.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 19, 2012.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Giles W. Dalby Correctional Institution, Post, TX, Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Ivan Verdusco-Cota, pro se.
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
Ivan Verdusco-Cota appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(i), and 846; and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)®. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Verdus-co-Cota'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 Verdusco-Cota 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.