United States of America v. Francisco Ozuna, a.k.a. Chico

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
FRANCISCO OZUNA, a.k.a. Chico,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50539
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00352-PSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Ozuna appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 151-month
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and
FILED
JAN 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Appellant’s January 3, 2012, motion requesting leave to file late1
supplemental excerpts of record is denied as moot because the supplemental
excerpts were accepted for filing.
10-50539 2
distribution of and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ozuna’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 with 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.1

-- 2 of 2 --