Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Junior Nicolas CHAVIRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-16
Citations: 447 F. App'x 823
Docket Number: No. 10-50262
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Junior Nicolas CHAVIRA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 823–823

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Junior Nicolas CHAVIRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50262.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 16, 2011.
Rupa Searight Goswami, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Junior Nicolas Chavira, Bennettsville, SC, pro se.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, 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
Junior Nicolas Chavira appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States 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), Chavira'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.