Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ENRIQUEZ-GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Enriquez-Gallegos, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 302 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: Nos. 06-50186, 06-50451
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ENRIQUEZ-GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Enriquez-Gallegos, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 610–610

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ENRIQUEZ-GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Enriquez-Gallegos, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 06-50186, 06-50451.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
Andrew G. Schopler, Asst. U.S. Atty., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Miguel Enriquez-Gallegos, FCIT-Federal Correctional Institution (Terminal Island), Terminal Island, CA, Jerald L. Brainin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Enriquez-Gallegos appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss supervised release proceedings, and the district court's order denying him an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Enriquez-Gallegos's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Enriquez-Gallegos has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
The government's motion to strike the pro se supplemental brief is DENIED.
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.