Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel RODRIGUEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-14
Citations: 471 F. App'x 750
Docket Number: No. 11-10009
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel RODRIGUEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 750–751

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel RODRIGUEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10009.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 14, 2012.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Eric W. Kessler, Kessler Law Offices, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Manuel Rodriguez-Alvarez, pro se.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, 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
Jose Manuel Rodriguez-Alvarez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 80-month sentence imposed for re-entry of a 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), Rodriguez-Alvarez'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 Rodriguez-Alvarez 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.
AFFIRMED.
ORDER
Plaintiffs motion to amend the memorandum disposition is granted.
The memorandum disposition filed on March 5, 2012 is withdrawn. A replacement memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.