Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel LOPEZ-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-19
Citations: 474 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 11-30178
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel LOPEZ-RUIZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel LOPEZ-RUIZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-30178.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 19, 2012.
Thomas H. Edmonds, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Miguel Lopez-Ruiz, pro se.
John E. Storkel, Storkel & Grefenson, P.C. Attorneys at Law, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Miguel Lopez-Ruiz appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 21-month sentence for unlawfully re-entering the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and eluding examination and inspection by immigration officials, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lopez-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 with 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.