Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio SERRANO-VILLALOBOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-18
Citations: 550 F. App'x 397
Docket Number: No. 12-10643
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio SERRANO-VILLALOBOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 397–397

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio SERRANO-VILLALOBOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10643.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
Todd D. Leras, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dan Frank Koukol, Law Office of Dan F. Koukol, Auburn, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Antonio Serrano-Villalobos, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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
Jose Antonio Serrano-Villalobos appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 150-month sentence for multiple drug offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Serrano-Villalobos'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 Serrano-Villalobos 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.