Court Opinion

ID: 206301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-09 01:04:16+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:51.321211
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 08 2011

                                                                        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. 09-50518

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00814-DDP

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
HECTOR DANIEL GARCIA, a.k.a. Gato,
a.k.a. Hector Perez, a.k.a. Hector Tanyo
Perez,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                    Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 15, 2011 **

Before:        CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Hector Daniel Garcia appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are

          *
             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).
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. We have considered the issues raised by Garcia in his pro se supplemental

brief. We have also considered the answering brief submitted by the government.

      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                                    09-50518