Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier CERON-GOMEZ, a.k.a. Raul Gomez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-01
Citations: 441 F. App'x 468
Docket Number: Nos. 09-10029, 09-10031
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier CERON-GOMEZ, a.k.a. Raul Gomez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier CERON-GOMEZ, a.k.a. Raul Gomez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 09-10029, 09-10031.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed July 1, 2011.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Enrique Rene Gonzales, Rio Rico, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Francisco Javier Ceron-Gomez appeals from (1) his guilty-plea conviction and 77-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and (2) the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing an 18-month sentence of imprisonment. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ceron-Gomez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 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.
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.