Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nabor CAMPILLO-VEGA, a.k.a. Eduardo Campillo-Vega, a.k.a. Juan Manuel Vega-Zuniga, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 594 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 13-10641
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nabor CAMPILLO-VEGA, a.k.a. Eduardo Campillo-Vega, a.k.a. Juan Manuel Vega-Zuniga, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 350–350

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nabor CAMPILLO-VEGA, a.k.a. Eduardo Campillo-Vega, a.k.a. Juan Manuel Vega-Zuniga, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10641.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed Feb. 24, 2015.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., United States District Court, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
George Herman Soltero, Esquire, Tucson, AZ for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Nabor Campillo-Vega appeals from the revocation of supervised release and 24-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Campillo-Vega'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 Campillo-Vega 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.