Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-03
Citations: 299 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 06-50156
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Efrain RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Efrain RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50156.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 3, 2008.
Carol M. Lee, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Stewart M. Young, Esq., U.S. Attorneys Office, Southern District of California, Criminal Division, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Efrain Ramirez-Ramirez, Taft, CA, pro se.
Steven A. Feldman, Esq., Uniondale, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Efrain Ramirez-Ramirez appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed, upon remand, following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ramirez-Ramirez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no arguable grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed pro se supplemental briefs, and the government has filed an answering brief.
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 sentence is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.