Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose GASPAR-CEBALLOS, a.k.a. Jose Alfredo Gaspar-Ceballos, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 463 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 11-10074
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose GASPAR-CEBALLOS, a.k.a. Jose Alfredo Gaspar-Ceballos, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 671–671

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose GASPAR-CEBALLOS, a.k.a. Jose Alfredo Gaspar-Ceballos, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10074.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
Sabrina Decosta, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc Victor, Esquire, Chandler, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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 Gaspar-Ceballos appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence imposed for reentry of 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), Gaspar-Ceballos'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.
Gaspar-Ceballos's pro se motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
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.