United States of America v. Walter Guadalupe Plancarte- Barrera

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).
DAT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER GUADALUPE PLANCARTE-
BARRERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-10568
D.C. No. CR-06-00914-JAT
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Walter Guadalupe Plancarte-Barrera appeals from his guilty-plea conviction
and mid-guidelines 147-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
FILED
MAR 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DAT/Research 07-10568 2
detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), & 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Plancarte-Barrera’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 --