Court Opinion

ID: 176744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-10-07 00:01:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:39.548759
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 06 2010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. 06-50707

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. CR-06-00262-SVW

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
BENITO MILLAN CARLOS, a.k.a.
BENITO CARLOS MILLAN,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                    Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

                                September 13, 2010 **

Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Benito Millan Carlos appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month

sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

          *
             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).
(1967), Carlos’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                                     06-50707