Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose ALVAREZ-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-26
Citations: 608 F. App'x 517
Docket Number: No. 13-10498
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose ALVAREZ-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose ALVAREZ-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10498.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed June 26, 2015.
Mia A. Giacomazzi, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lisa M. Sciandra, Lisa M. Sciandra, Attorney at Law, San Leandro, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Juan Jose Alvarez-Arroyo, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Juan Jose Alvarez-Arroyo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, 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), Alvarez-Arroyo's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a 'motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Alvarez-Arroyo 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.