Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Eraclio QUESADA-TREVIZO, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-28
Citations: 329 F. App'x 173
Docket Number: No. 08-10267
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Eraclio QUESADA-TREVIZO, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 173–174

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Eraclio QUESADA-TREVIZO, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 08-10267.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 28, 2009.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Angela Walker Woolridge, Assistants U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Enrique Rene Gonzales, Rio Rico, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eraclio Quesada-Trevizo, Glenville, WV, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eraclio Quesada-Trevizo appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for illegal re-entry 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), Quesada-Trevizo'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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.