Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan HERNANDEZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 391 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 08-10499
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan HERNANDEZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 595–595

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan HERNANDEZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10499.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
John Robert Lopez, USPX-Office of The U.S. Attorney, Raymond K. Woo, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patrick Edward McGillicuddy, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Patrick E. McGilli-cuddy, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Juan Hernandez-Guzman, Bruceton Mills, WV, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Hernandez-Guzman appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 132-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Guzman's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have considered the claims raised by Hernandez-Guzman's pro se supplemental brief submitted on March 29, 2010. No 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 arguable 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.