Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel Roman GIMENO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-03
Citations: 344 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 08-10470
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel Roman GIMENO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 423–425

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel Roman GIMENO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10470.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Sept. 3, 2009.
Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Pamela A. Martin, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Noel Roman Gimeno appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his 140-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gimeno'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 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.
Gimeno's pro se request for counsel, received in this court on May 8, 2009, is deemed filed and is denied.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's order is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.