Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin ZAVALA-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-05
Citations: 445 F. App'x 988
Docket Number: No. 09-50515
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin ZAVALA-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 445
Pages: 988–989

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin ZAVALA-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50515.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
Filed Aug. 5, 2011.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Keri Curtis Axel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Martin Zavala-Soto, pro se.
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Martin Zavala-Soto appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-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), Zavala-Soto'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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.