Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Lorenzo MEDINA-COTA, a.k.a. Ramon Medina-Cota, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-20
Citations: 411 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: Nos. 08-10333, 08-10334
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Lorenzo MEDINA-COTA, a.k.a. Ramon Medina-Cota, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Lorenzo MEDINA-COTA, a.k.a. Ramon Medina-Cota, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 08-10333, 08-10334.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Claire Lefkowitz, Esquire, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Harrison Green, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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, Ramon Lorenzo Medina-Cota appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 75-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from his revocation of supervised release and 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), Medina-Cota's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. No pro se 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, the district court's judgments are AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.