United States of America v. Virgil Edward Grant, Iii

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VIRGIL EDWARD GRANT, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50181
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00600-SVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Virgil Edward Grant, III, appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and
72-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute 100 or more kilograms of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Grant’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are
FILED
DEC 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50181 2
no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We
have provided 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 (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 of 2 --