Court Opinion

ID: 8471359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-05 12:31:35.53799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:19.558149
License: Public Domain

*441MEMORANDUM **
Margarito Apracio-Garcia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 114-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Apracio-Garcia’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 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Apracio-Garcia’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.