Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro OCHOA-ENCINAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-09
Citations: 334 F. App'x 105
Docket Number: No. 08-10186
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro OCHOA-ENCINAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 105–106

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro OCHOA-ENCINAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10186.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009 .
Filed Oct. 9, 2009.
John Robert Lopez, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ramiro Ochoa-Encinas, Florence, AZ, pro se.
David Eisenberg, I, Esquire, David Ei-senberg, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ramiro Ochoa-Encinas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for attempted re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ochoa-Encinas' 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.