Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco OZUNA, a.k.a. Chico, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-23
Citations: 466 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 10-50539
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco OZUNA, a.k.a. Chico, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco OZUNA, a.k.a. Chico, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50539.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 23, 2012.
Monica Mange, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip Deitch, Esquire, Trial, Philip Deitch Law Offices, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Francisco Ozuna, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Francisco Ozuna appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 151-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and distribution of and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ozuna'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. 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.
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.
. Appellant's January 3, 2012, motion requesting leave to file late supplemental excerpts of record is denied as moot because the supplemental excerpts were accepted for filing.