Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul REYES-CORTEZ, a/k/a Raul Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-01
Citations: 265 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 06-50378
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul REYES-CORTEZ, a/k/a Raul Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul REYES-CORTEZ, a/k/a Raul Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50378.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Feb. 1, 2008.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Mark Childs, AUSA, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wayne R. Young, Esq., Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raul Reyes-Cortez appeals from the district court's determination that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence following remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Reyes-Cortez'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 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.