Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margarito VALERO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-17
Citations: 579 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 12-10556
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margarito VALERO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margarito VALERO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10556.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2014.
Filed June 17, 2014.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the Us Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Angela Poliquin, Esquire, Giles W. Dal-by Correctional Institution, Post, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Margarito Valero-Torres, Angela C. Po-liquin, Attorney At Law, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. 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
Margarito Valero-Torres appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for 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), Valero-Torres'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 Va-lero-Torres 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.
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.