Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago ARCE-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-17
Citations: 579 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 13-10478
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago ARCE-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago ARCE-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10478.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2014.
Filed June 17, 2014.
Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Santiago Arce-Rodriguez, Salters, SC, pro se.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. 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
Santiago Arce-Rodriguez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 18-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and from the district court's order denying his motion to extend time 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), Arce-Rodriguez'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 Arce-Rodriguez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Treating Arce-Rodriguez's appeal as timely, 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.