(Super. Ct. No. CM032291)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson,j.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In March 2010, defendant Ali Alzawed was driving a pickup truck in Butte County.*fn1 A traffic stop was made, and he was arrested on a warrant from Missouri. A search of his pocket incident to the arrest yielded a plastic bag containing 2.4 grams of methamphetamine, packaged in 20 smaller bags that ranged in weight from 0.1 grams to 0.5 grams.
Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) In exchange, two related counts were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years, awarded 47 days' custody credit and 22 days' conduct credit. The court imposed fees and fines, including a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $50 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) plus penalty assessments, a $150 drug program fee plus penalty assessments (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), a $30 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).*fn2
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, P. J. ...