Court Opinion

ID: 858693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-04-22 20:18:05.257719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:40.614013
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 22 2013

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 11-10594

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00282-ROS

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JOSE ARMANDO DAMIANO,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     Roslyn O. Silver, Chief Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 16, 2013**

Before:        CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       Jose Armando Damiano appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 111-month sentence for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

          *
             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).
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii); and 846; and possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Damiano’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 Damiano 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                                     11-10594