From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Garcia

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 19, 2003
72 F. App'x 710 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


72 Fed.Appx. 710 (9th Cir. 2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo Clemente GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-50254. D.C. No. CR-01-00031-RJT. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 19, 2003

Submitted August 11, 2003.

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Robert J. Timlin, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Reynaldo Clemente Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence

Page 711.

imposed for distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Clemente Garcia's attorney has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Clemente Garcia has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our review of the Anders brief and our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Garcia

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 19, 2003
72 F. App'x 710 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

U.S. v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynaldo Clemente GARCIA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 19, 2003

Citations

72 F. App'x 710 (9th Cir. 2003)