Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnulfo ROSALES-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-03
Citations: 451 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 10-10387
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arnulfo ROSALES-MENDOZA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arnulfo ROSALES-MENDOZA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-10387.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 3, 2011.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Florence Bruemmer, Law Offices of Florence M. Bruemmer, PC, Anthem, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Arnulfo Rosales-Mendoza, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Arnulfo Rosales-Mendoza appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rosales-Mendoza'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.