Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus DE LA ROCHA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 377 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 09-10077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus DE LA ROCHA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus DE LA ROCHA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 21, 2010.
John Robert Lopez, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jesus De La Rocha-Lopez, Pecos, TX, pro se.
James Sun Park, Counsel, Park Law Office PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, 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
Jesus De La Rocha-Lopez appeals from the 47-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rocha-Lopez'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 provided the appellant with 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, 80-81, 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.