Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MACHUCA-MACHUCA, aka Otoniel Santos-Sanchez, Francisco Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-15
Citations: 74 F. App'x 831
Docket Number: No. 02-10137; D.C. No. CR-01-00951-PGR
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MACHUCA-MACHUCA, aka Otoniel Santos-Sanchez, Francisco Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 74
Pages: 831–831

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MACHUCA-MACHUCA, aka Otoniel Santos-Sanchez, Francisco Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-10137.
D.C. No. CR-01-00951-PGR.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
Decided Sept. 15, 2003.
Janice M. Marquez, Esq., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael S. Reeves, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Machuca-Machuca appeals his 53-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following 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), Machuca-Machuca's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our examination of the brief and independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues warranting review. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.