Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudio RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Tony, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-14
Citations: 421 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 09-50184
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudio RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Tony, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudio RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Tony, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50184.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 14, 2011.
Harvinder S. Anand, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
Claudio Rodriguez appeals from the 80-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for intentionally distributing a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l)(b)(l)(B)(viii), and intentionally distributing a mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l)(b)(l)(A)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rodriguez'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.