Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco TORRES-MORA, 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 737
Docket Number: No. 10-50055
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco TORRES-MORA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 737–737

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco TORRES-MORA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50055.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2001.
Filed March 8, 2011.
Peter William Baldwin, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Francisco Torres-Mora, pro se.
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
Francisco Torres-Mora appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and the 8-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Torres-Mora'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 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.