Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge RODRIGUEZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-21
Citations: 334 F. App'x 135
Docket Number: No. 08-10135
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge RODRIGUEZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge RODRIGUEZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-10135.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009 .
Filed Oct. 21, 2009.
John Robert Lopez, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc J. Victor, Esquire, Chandler, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jorge Rodriguez-Vasquez, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Rodriguez-Vasquez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 127-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii), and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(viii).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rodriguez-Vasquez'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, and no pro se brief has been filed. The government has filed a letter indicating that it does not intend to file 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, 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.