United States of America v. Brittany Anne Seibel, a.k.a. Brittany Seibel

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
BRITTANY ANNE SEIBEL, a.k.a.
Brittany Seibel,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10397
D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00916-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Brittany Anne Seibel appeals from her jury-trial conviction and 60-month
sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
FILED
MAR 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10397 2
738 (1967), Seibel’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.

-- 2 of 2 --