Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor HUERTA-MARTINEZ, aka Jose Manzo-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-28
Citations: 397 F. App'x 377
Docket Number: No. 08-10242
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor HUERTA-MARTINEZ, aka Jose Manzo-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 377–377

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor HUERTA-MARTINEZ, aka Jose Manzo-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10242.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 28, 2010.
Claire Lefkowitz, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Myrna R. Beards, Tucson, AZ, Victor Huerta-Martinez, Lompoc, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Victor Huerta-Martinez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 77-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, 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), Huerta-Martinez'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.