Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maximiliano MENDEZ-BALTAZAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-22
Citations: 543 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: Nos. 12-10582, 12-10583
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maximiliano MENDEZ-BALTAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maximiliano MENDEZ-BALTAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 12-10582, 12-10583.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
Maria Rodriguez Gutierrez, USYU-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Yuma, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Eisenberg, I, Esquire, David Ei-senberg, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Maximili-ano Mendez-Baltazar appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Mendez-Baltazar'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 Mendez-Baltazar 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.