
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Vicente VELEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Israel Zambrano-Rivera, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 05-50836, 05-50840.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 22, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2007.
    Sherri Walker Hobson, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael J. Messina, Office of Michael J. Messina, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Appellant, Jose Israel Zambrano-Rivera.
    Paul W. Blake, Esq., Law Offices of Lee Plummer, Bonita, CA, for Defendant-Appellant, Jose Vicente Velez-Garcia.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Vicente Velez-Garcia appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine on board a vessel, in violation of 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c)(1)(A), (F), and (J). Jose Israel Zambrano-Rivera appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on board a vessel, in violation of 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(a), (c)(1)(A), and (f). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for both appellants have filed briefs stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, along with motions to withdraw as counsel of record. We have given appellants the opportunity to file pro se supplemental briefs. No pro se supplemental briefs or answering briefs have been filed.

Our examination of the briefs and our independent review of the records pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal in either case.

The motions to withdraw as counsel are GRANTED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     