Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo CRUZ-CASTILLO, aka Everardo Cruz-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 377 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 09-10177
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo CRUZ-CASTILLO, aka Everardo Cruz-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 606–606

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo CRUZ-CASTILLO, aka Everardo Cruz-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10177.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 21, 2010.
Brent Landis, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Everardo Cruz-Castillo, Lovejoy, GA Adrian Paulino Fontes, The Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eduardo Cruz-Castillo, pro se.
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
Eduardo Cruz-Castillo appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for illegal re-entry 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), Cruz-Castillo'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 with 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, 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.