Filed: Dec. 16, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-10127 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:06-CR-00417-LJO v. MEMORANDUM * JULIA GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2009 ** Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jul
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-10127 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:06-CR-00417-LJO v. MEMORANDUM * JULIA GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2009 ** Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Juli..
More
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-10127
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:06-CR-00417-LJO
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JULIA GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Julia Garcia appeals from her jury-trial conviction and 37-month sentence
imposed for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
DAT/Research
Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Garcia’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.
DAT/Research 2 08-10127