Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose FIGUEROA-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-15
Citations: 75 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 02-10055; D.C. No. CR-01-00992-JMR
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose FIGUEROA-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose FIGUEROA-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-10055.
D.C. No. CR-01-00992-JMR.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
Decided Sept. 15, 2003.
Eric J. Markovich, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Jose Figueroa-Gutierrez, Sheridan, OR, pro se., David Taylor Shannon, AFPD, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Figueroa-Gutierrez appeals his 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following 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), Figueroa-Gutierrez's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our examination of the brief and independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues warranting review. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. We decline to review any ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Hanoum, 33 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.1994).