Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MIRANDA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-30
Citations: 623 F. App'x 497
Docket Number: No. 15-50075
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MIRANDA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 497–498

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MIRANDA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50075.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Submitted Nov. 24, 2015.
Filed Nov. 30, 2015.
Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Cohn M. McDonald, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Owen Lanahan, Law Office of John Lanahan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
David Miranda-Ramirez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his sentence of 37-months in prison and- one year supervised release for attempted re-entry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Miranda-Ramirez'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 Miranda-Ramirez 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.
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.