
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro RAMIREZ-BALDENEBRO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30269.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2010.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    Frank Papagni, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of U.S. Attorney, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Laura Graser, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Alvaro Ramirez-Baldenebro, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

. Alvaro Ramirez-Baldenebro appeals from his conviction and 160-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)© and 846; and possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)®. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ramirez-B aldenebro’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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     