Court Opinion

ID: 4230753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-20 21:00:44.12331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:58.303432
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 20 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-50078

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:16-cr-00075-DOC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JOSE ARREDONDO, a.k.a. Jose Guadalupe
Arredondo,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Arredondo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea convictions and 168-month concurrent sentences for distribution of

methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Arredondo’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 Arredondo 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                  17-50078