Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Montes CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-16
Citations: 421 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 10-50147
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Montes CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 753–753

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Montes CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50147.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 16, 2011.
Bryan F. Boutwell, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
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
Antonio Montes Castro appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Castro'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. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief have 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.
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.