Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Ledesma SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-22
Citations: 323 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 07-50484
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Ledesma SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Ledesma SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50484.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 22, 2009.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, Jennifer L. Waier, Assistant U.S, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Myra Mossman, Esquire, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Antonio Ledesma Sanchez, pro se.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antonio Ledesma Sanchez appeals from the 140-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sanchez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no arguable 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.