Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pedro VALDEZ-ROBLES, a.k.a. Jose Luis Ortiz-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-19
Citations: 479 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 11-10395
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pedro VALDEZ-ROBLES, a.k.a. Jose Luis Ortiz-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pedro VALDEZ-ROBLES, a.k.a. Jose Luis Ortiz-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10395.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 19, 2012.
Monte Cress Clausen, Assistant U.S., Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of The U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Armand Sálese, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Juan Pedro Valdez-Robles, pro se.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Juan Pedro Valdez-Robles appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry 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), Valdez-Robles'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 Valdez-Robles 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, 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.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.