Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10408
D.C. N0. CR-04-00208-FJM
Plaintiff- Appellee,
v.
JUDGMENT
LUIS DEMETRIO DRABOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix). —
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered 08/20/07
. I A TRUE COPY
CATHY A. <;ATTETes0¤\¤
Clerk of C0urT
ATTEST
by: I
M Dep p y C rk
Case 2:04—cr—00208-FJIVI Document 231 Filed O9/11/2007 Page 1 of 3

NOT Pon PUBLICATION AUG 20 2007
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS °AT'J?£%<$°·ii¤iT FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ‘ No. 05-10408
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-00208-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM"
LUIS DEMETRIO DRABOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2007**
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Demetrio Drabos appeals from the district court’s judgment and 41-
month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy and
aiding and abetting firearms offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:04—cr—00208-FJIVI Document 231 Filed O9/11/2007 Page 2 of 3

Pursuant to Anders v. Calyornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Drabos’ counsel has
filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. Drabos did not file a pro se supplemental brief,
and the Government did not file an answering brief.
Our independent review of the briefs and the record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81 (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.
A éAli%EE8K%ER5eN
A Clerk of Court
Arresr p
SEP 1 1 2007
2 4/
by: Dep C erk
Case 2:O4—cr-00208-FJIVI Document 231 Filed O9/11/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00208-FJM

Document 231

Filed 09/11/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00208-FJM

Document 231

Filed 09/11/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00208-FJM

Document 231

Filed 09/11/2007

Page 3 of 3