From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Caro-Carrazco

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 4, 2008
298 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-10489.

Submitted October 28, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed November 4, 2008.

Christina Marie Cabanillas, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andrea L. Matheson, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-07-00514-FRZ.

Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Pedro Caro-Carrazco appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Caro-Carrazco'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 an 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 PPMSOTI, 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.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Caro-Carrazco

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 4, 2008
298 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Caro-Carrazco

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CARO-CARRAZCO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 4, 2008

Citations

298 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2008)