Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosa Oralia PONCE-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-18
Citations: 384 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 09-10283
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosa Oralia PONCE-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 637–637

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosa Oralia PONCE-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10283.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 18, 2010.
Walter Perkel, United States Attorney Office, District of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nancy Hinchcliffe, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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
Rosa Oralia Ponce-Rodriguez appeals from her guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 Ú.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ponee-Rodriguez'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 Ponce-Rodriguez 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.
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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.