Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Elena AGUIRRE-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-21
Citations: 349 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 07-50196
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Elena AGUIRRE-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 349
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Elena AGUIRRE-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50196.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 21, 2009.
Rob B. Villeza, Esq., Michael J. Raphael, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Suite B, Carpintería, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
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
Maria Elena Aguirre-Pineda appeals from her guilty-plea conviction and 168-month sentence imposed for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Aguirre-Pineda'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. The appellant has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, but she has filed a letter, which we construe as a motion for appointment of counsel and deny. 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.