Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Raul MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-16
Citations: 505 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 12-10071
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Raul MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 505
Pages: 647–647

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Raul MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10071.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas E. Higgins, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas E. Higgins Jr., Tucson, AZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Ricardo Raul Mendez, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, 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
Ricardo Raul Mendez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(ii)(II). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Mendez's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Mendez 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, 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.