
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Clarisa RODRIGUEZ-ACEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-10333.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 8, 2007 .
    Filed Jan. 12, 2007.
    David Paul Flannigan, Esq., USTU— Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini, U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Maria Clarisa Rodriguez-Acedo, Dublin, CA, pro se.
    Nathan D. Leonardo, Esq., Leonardo & Roach, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Clarisa Rodriguez-Acedo appeals from her guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(l)(B)(vii) and 846.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rodriguez-Acedo’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 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 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. •
     