Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo GARCIA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-16
Citations: 357 F. App'x 952
Docket Number: No. 08-50571
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo GARCIA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo GARCIA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50571.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 16, 2009.
John Kucera, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Davina T. Chen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Michael V. Schafler, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rodolfo Garcia-Perez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 87-month sentence imposed for being an alien found in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia-Perez'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.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).