Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Abel ESTRADA-AMBRIZ, a.k.a. Jose Abel Ambriz Estrada, a.k.a. Jose Abel Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-02
Citations: 474 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 11-10336
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Abel ESTRADA-AMBRIZ, a.k.a. Jose Abel Ambriz Estrada, a.k.a. Jose Abel Ruiz, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Abel ESTRADA-AMBRIZ, a.k.a. Jose Abel Ambriz Estrada, a.k.a. Jose Abel Ruiz, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10336.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 2, 2012.
Ian Garriques, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jose Abel Estrada-Ambriz, Post, TX, pro se.
Carolyn Phillips, Esquire, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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 Abel Estrada-Ambriz appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, 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), Estrada-Ambriz's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Estrada-Ambriz has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Estrada-Ambriz filed a pro se notice of appeal over nine months after the district court entered judgement. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)®.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.