Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Jesus ESCALANTE-PEREYRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-21
Citations: 255 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 05-10680
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario Jesus ESCALANTE-PEREYRA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 199–199

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario Jesus ESCALANTE-PEREYRA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-10680.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
Filed Nov. 21, 2007.
Robert Don Gifford, II, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Glynn Burroughs Cartledge, Esq., Law Offices of Glynn Burroughs Cartledge, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Jesus Escalante-Pereyra appeals from his jury-trial conviction and sentence of time served for unlawful reentry by a deported 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), Escalante-Pereyra'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 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.