Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Adrian CORTEZ-ESTRADA, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-26
Citations: 434 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 10-50143
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Adrian CORTEZ-ESTRADA, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 434
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Adrian CORTEZ-ESTRADA, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 10-50143.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed May 26, 2011.
Dominic Kardum, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., W. Mark Conover, I, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Herman Bartick, Esquire, Law Offices of David H. Bartick, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Adrian Cortez-Estrada, Glenville, WV, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Adrian Cortez-Estrada appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, 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), Cortez-Estrada'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.