Court Opinion

ID: 2324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-22 17:52:31+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:42:12.470496
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 21 2010

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 08-50262

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 5:06-cr-00019-VAP

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
JOSE GARCIA-LOPEZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Central District of California
                     Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

                               Submitted April 5, 2010 **

Before:        RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Jose Garcia-Lopez appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine and aiding and

abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (B)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Garcia-Lopez’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 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 (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.

                                          2                                    08-50262