Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Priciciliano PONCE-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-14
Citations: 421 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 10-10058
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Priciciliano PONCE-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Priciciliano PONCE-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10058.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 14, 2011.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Florence Bruemmer, Law Offices of Florence M. Bruemmer, PC, Anthem, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Joel Priciciliano Ponce-Ramirez, pro se.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, 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
Joel Priciciliano Ponce-Ramirez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 21-month sentence for illegal re-entry 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), Ponce-Ramirez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for re lief, 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. We dismiss the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.