Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Dedios ELICEA-RUIZ, aka Juan Ruiz, Juan Elisea, Dedios Elicea-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 06-10693
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Dedios ELICEA-RUIZ, aka Juan Ruiz, Juan Elisea, Dedios Elicea-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 637–637

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Dedios ELICEA-RUIZ, aka Juan Ruiz, Juan Elisea, Dedios Elicea-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10693.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 10, 2008.
John Zachary Boyle, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Adrian P. Fontes, The Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Dedios Elicea-Ruiz appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction 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), Elicea-Ruiz'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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.