Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge AVENA-PARDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-06
Citations: 305 F. App'x 321
Docket Number: No. 06-10400
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge AVENA-PARDO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 321–321

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge AVENA-PARDO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-10400.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 6, 2008.
John Zachary Boyle, USPX — Office of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald W. Macpherson, Esq., The Macpherson Group, PC, Glendale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Avena-Pardo appeals from his jury-trial conviction and the 384-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to commit hostage taking and hostage taking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203, using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(l)(A)(ii), and harboring illegal aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(iii), (a)(l)(B)(i).
Pursuant to Anders v. Califortna, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Avena-Pardo'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. 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, appellant's pro se motion for substitute counsel is DENIED, 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.