Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose VASQUEZ-GARCIA, aka Jorge Mendez Mauricio, aka Jose Manuel Vasquez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-03
Citations: 344 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 08-10157
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose VASQUEZ-GARCIA, aka Jorge Mendez Mauricio, aka Jose Manuel Vasquez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose VASQUEZ-GARCIA, aka Jorge Mendez Mauricio, aka Jose Manuel Vasquez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10157.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Sept. 3, 2009.
Claire Lefkowitz, Esquire, Christina Marie Cabanillas, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrea Lynn Matheson, Matheson Law Firm, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Vasquez-Garcia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sen tence for illegal 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), Vasquez-Garcia'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 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 provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.