Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis ZAVALA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 516 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 12-10043
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis ZAVALA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis ZAVALA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10043.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 22, 2013.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jose Luis Zavala-Vasquez, Minersville, PA, pro se.
Darla Jean Mondou, Esquire, Mondou Law Office, Maraña, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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 Luis Zavala-Vasquez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 77-month sentence 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), Zavala-Vasquez's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Za-vala-Vasquez 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.