Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo PACHECO-BELLO, aka Hugo Flores, Valenzuela Silva, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-28
Citations: 199 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 05-10337
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hugo PACHECO-BELLO, aka Hugo Flores, Valenzuela Silva, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 199
Pages: 644–645

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hugo PACHECO-BELLO, aka Hugo Flores, Valenzuela Silva, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-10337.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 21, 2006.
Filed Aug. 28, 2006.
Michael S. Somsan, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Donald W. MacPherson, Esq., The MacPherson Group, PC, Glendale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hugo Pacheco-Bello appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment. Pacheco-Bello was originally convicted of illegal reentry 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), counsel for Pacheco-Bello has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief.
Accordingly, we GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court's judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.