Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Enrique GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-06
Citations: 299 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 07-10232
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luis Enrique GONZALEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 732–732

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luis Enrique GONZALEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-10232.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 6, 2008.
Jerry R. Albert, Esq., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Myrna Rodriguez Beards, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Enrique Gonzalez appeals from the district court's determination, upon remand, that there was not a complete breakdown in communication between Gonzalez and trial counsel which prevented the presentation of an adequate defense at trial. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gonzalez'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 determination is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.