Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rufino VALDEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 419 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 08-10263
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rufino VALDEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 712–713

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rufino VALDEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10263.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 8, 2011.
John Robert Lopez, Lisa Jennis Settel, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX-Office of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc Victor, Esquire, Chandler, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Rufino Valdez-Lopez appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 240-month sen tence for conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(iii), (a)(l)(A)(v)(I) and (II); harboring illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii) and (a)(l)(A)(v)(II); conspiracy to commit hostage taking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203; hostage taking and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203 and 2; and possession or use of a firearm in a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and 2. Pursuant to An-ders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Valdez-Lopez'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.