Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eloy GUTIERREZ-BARBA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-26
Citations: 389 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 09-10287
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eloy GUTIERREZ-BARBA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ABARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 685–685

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eloy GUTIERREZ-BARBA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10287.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 26, 2010.
Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S., Christina Marie Cabanillas,- Assistant U.S., USTU-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Enrique Rene Gonzales, Rio Rico, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eloy Gutierrez-Barba, pro se.
Before: ABARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Eloy Gutierrez-Barba appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 43-month sentence for attempted 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), Gutierrez-Barba'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. We construe Gutierrez-Barba's letter, dated January 6, 2010, as a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Gutierrez-Barba's motion for appointment of counsel and "Petition for Order Directing Attorney of Record to Surrender Defense Files" and the government's motion for summary affirmance are denied.
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 judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.