Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Crisanto Lopez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-19
Citations: 538 F. App'x 806
Docket Number: No. 12-50328
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Crisanto Lopez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 806–806

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Crisanto Lopez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50328.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 19, 2013.
Carla Jean Bressler Keehn, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gordon Stewart Brownell, St. Helena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Alberto Lopez-Gonzalez, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, 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
Alberto Lopez-Gonzalez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, 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), Lopez-Gonzalez'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 Lopez-Gonzalez 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.