U.S. v. SANDOVAL-MENDOZA, 285 Fed.Appx. 457 (9th Cir. 2008)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo SANDOVAL-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10293.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted June 18, 2008.[*]
Filed July 11, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

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

Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Warrington S. Parker, III, Esq., Heller Ehrman, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-01-40201-SBA.

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

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

Ricardo Sandoval-Mendoza appeals from his 240-month mandatory minimum sentence following a limited remand pursuant t United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sandoval-Mendoza’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Sandoval-Mendoza has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief and a pro se reply brief. The government has filed an answering brief.

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.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Page 458