Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Gabel GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-21
Citations: 473 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 10-10314
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Gabel GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Gabel GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10314.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 21, 2012.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. USPX—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter A. Kelly, Palominas, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Angel Gabel Gonzales appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 70-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(vii), and 846; and for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vii).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gonzales'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.
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.