Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier NOYOLA-BERNAL, aka Maledio Hernandez-Palacio, aka Ignacio Cruz Arellano, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-07
Citations: 333 F. App'x 320
Docket Number: No. 08-10208
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier NOYOLA-BERNAL, aka Maledio Hernandez-Palacio, aka Ignacio Cruz Arellano, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier NOYOLA-BERNAL, aka Maledio Hernandez-Palacio, aka Ignacio Cruz Arellano, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10208.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 7, 2009.
Claire Lefkowitz, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas Frank Jacobs, Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Javier Noyola-Bernal, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
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
Javier Noyola-Bernal appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 77-month sentence for 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), Noyola-Bernal'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 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.