United States v. 2020-09-16 | 19-30187 | USA V. DANIEL RODRIGUEZ-SANTOS | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ-SANTOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30187

D.C. No. 1:18-cr-02042-SMJ-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Rodriguez-Santos appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his jury-trial conviction and 144-month sentence for possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B)(viii), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

SEP 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-30187
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rodriguez-Santos’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there
are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
Rodriguez-Santos has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has
been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Contrary to Rodriguez-Santos’s argument in his pro se brief, counsel’s brief
comports with the requirements of Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.