Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo MONTES-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-26
Citations: 434 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 09-10455
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo MONTES-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 434
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo MONTES-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10455.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed May 26, 2011.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brian I. Rademacher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, 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
Adolfo Montes-Castro appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 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), Montes-Castro'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. We have considered appellant's pro se supplemental brief, the government's motion to dismiss, and counsel's motion to allow a pro se response to the government's motion to dismiss.
We deny the government's motion to dismiss. We also deny appellate counsel's motion to allow a pro se response.
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.