Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago VALLE-DOMINGUEZ, a.k.a. Santiago Ramirez-Valle, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 463 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 10-10541
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago VALLE-DOMINGUEZ, a.k.a. Santiago Ramirez-Valle, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago VALLE-DOMINGUEZ, a.k.a. Santiago Ramirez-Valle, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10541.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nathan Donlon Leonardo, Leonardo Law Offices, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Santiago Valle-Dominguez, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Santiago Valle-Dominguez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for reentry 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), Valle-Dominguez's counsel has filed a brief stating that 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. The appellant has filed a motion for appointment of new counsel, and no 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 Valle-Domin-guez's motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.