Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Victor QUIROA-ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-15
Citations: 375 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 09-10059
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Victor QUIROA-ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 794–794

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Victor QUIROA-ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10059.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 15, 2010.
John Robert Lopez, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
David Eisenberg, I, Esquire, David Ei-senberg, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Jose Victor Quiroa-Arias, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Jose Victor Quiroa-Arias appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Quiroa-Arias' 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 Qui-roa-Arias 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.