Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro SOLORIO-CADENA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-07
Citations: 395 F. App'x 378
Docket Number: No. 09-10316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro SOLORIO-CADENA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro SOLORIO-CADENA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10316.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 28, 2010.
Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patrick Edward McGillicuddy, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Patrick E. McGillicuddy, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Alejandro Solorio-Cadena, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Alejandro Solorio-Cadena appeals from his 46-month sentence for 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), Solorio-Cadena'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.