Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacinto PEREZ-ORTIZ, a.k.a. Jacinto Ortiz Perez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 402 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 09-10445
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jacinto PEREZ-ORTIZ, a.k.a. Jacinto Ortiz Perez, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jacinto PEREZ-ORTIZ, a.k.a. Jacinto Ortiz Perez, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-10445.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
Claire Lefkowitz, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas Scott Hartzell, T.S. Hartzell, Attorney at Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Jacinto Perez-Ortiz appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for illegal re-entry 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), Perez-Ortiz'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.