Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heriberto MARTINEZ-CHACON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-16
Citations: 358 F. App'x 962
Docket Number: No. 08-10556
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heriberto MARTINEZ-CHACON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 962–963

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heriberto MARTINEZ-CHACON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10556.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 16, 2009.
John Robert Lopez, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas Erickson, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Heriberto Martinez-Chacon appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 52-month sentence for attempted illegal reentry 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), Martinez-Chacon's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Martinez-Chacon has filed a pro se supplemental brief requesting an evidentiary hearing, the Government has filed a motion to dismiss instead of an answering brief, and MartinezChacon has filed a pro se response to the motion to dismiss.
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, all pending motions are DENIED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.