Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GOMEZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10390.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Decided June 21, 2013.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Erica Mccallum, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrea Lynn Matheson, Andrea L. Matheson-Matheson Law Firm, P.C. Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes tins case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Gomez-Vasquez appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gomez-Vasquez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Gomez-Vasquez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government has filed a motion for summary affirmance.

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. The government’s motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.