Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mangarito APRACIO-GARCIA, 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 440
Docket Number: No. 06-30566
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mangarito APRACIO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mangarito APRACIO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30566.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Sept. 3, 2009.
Vincent T. Lombardi, Esq., USSE-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Helen J. Brunner, Esq., for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
William Broberg, Esq., Seattle, WA, 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
Margarito Apracio-Garcia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 114-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Apracio-Garcia'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.
Apracio-Garcia's motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot. 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.