Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Antonio ENRIQUEZ-MONTANO, aka Antonio Enriquez-Montano; et al., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-09
Citations: 292 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 07-10325
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jesus Antonio ENRIQUEZ-MONTANO, aka Antonio Enriquez-Montano; et al., Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jesus Antonio ENRIQUEZ-MONTANO, aka Antonio Enriquez-Montano; et al., Defendant — Appellant.
No. 07-10325.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 9, 2008.
Liza Granoff, U.S. Attorneys Office, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wanda Day, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesus Antonio Enriquez-Montano appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal 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), Enriquez-Montano'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 the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. We construe the document received March 12, 2008, as a motion to file a late pro se supplemental brief as well as a pro se supplemental brief. So construed, the motion to file a late pro se supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the pro se supplemental brief received on March 12, 2008.
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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.