Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONGJUN LI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-28
Citations: 585 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 13-10220
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONGJUN LI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 733–733

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONGJUN LI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10220.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Nov. 28, 2014.
Ross K. Naughton, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Saipan, MP, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Steven Payne Pixley, Esquire, Tan Holdings Corporation Legal Department, Saipan, MP, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. 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
DongJun Li appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and sentence of 12 months and one day for preventing or hampering removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Li'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 Li 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 as to Li's conviction. We, accordingly, affirm the conviction.
Because Li has completed his custodial sentence and his term of supervised release, his challenge to the sentence is moot. See United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999). We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as to his sentence.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.