Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ottoneil TEJADA-YANEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-30
Citations: 450 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 10-10368
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ottoneil TEJADA-YANEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 695–696

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ottoneil TEJADA-YANEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10368.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Sept. 30, 2011.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn T. Hamilton, Esquire, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Ottoneil Tejada-Yanez, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Ottoniel Tejada-Yanez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for re-entry of removed 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), Tejada-Yanez'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 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.
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.