Court Opinion

ID: 625063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-03-09 22:34:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:09.765082
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 09 2012

                                                                        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. 10-10397

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00916-CKJ

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
BRITTANY ANNE SEIBEL, a.k.a.
Brittany Seibel,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted March 6, 2012 **

Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

       Brittany Anne Seibel appeals from her jury-trial conviction and 60-month

sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

          *
             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).
738 (1967), Seibel’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                                    10-10397