22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4bf,MEMORANDUM J. Jesus Oeegueda-Ocegueda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his bench-trial conviction and 57-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,' in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846; and conspiracy to import and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(3), and 963. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Oeegueda-Ocegueda’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Oeegueda-Ocegueda 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 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4f1,

MEMORANDUM

J. Jesus Oeegueda-Ocegueda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his bench-trial conviction and 57-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,' in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846; and conspiracy to import and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(3), and 963. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Oeegueda-Ocegueda’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Oeegueda-Ocegueda 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 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

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