Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio ROMERO-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 399 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 09-10140
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio ROMERO-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio ROMERO-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10140.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Adrian Paulino Fontes, Counsel, The Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Sergio Romero-Nunez appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry 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), Romero-Nunez'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.