Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio CHAVEZ-REGALADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-20
Citations: 254 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 05-10789
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio CHAVEZ-REGALADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio CHAVEZ-REGALADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10789.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 22, 2007.
Filed Nov. 20, 2007.
William L. Sims, Marianne A. Pansa, Esq., Marianne A. Pansa, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carolyn D. Phillips, Esq., Carolyn D. Phillips, Attorney at Law, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Antonio Chavez-Regalado appeals from the district court's order concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence, following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Chavez-Regal ado's counsel has filed a brief requesting to withdraw as counsel of record, and stating there are no grounds for relief. We have provided the appellant an 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 grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, Chavez-Regalado's pro se motion to dismiss is DENIED, counsel's request to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's order is
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.