Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David John AREVALO, a.k.a. FNU LNU, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-12
Citations: 533 F. App'x 719
Docket Number: No. 12-50330
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David John AREVALO, a.k.a. FNU LNU, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 533
Pages: 719–720

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David John AREVALO, a.k.a. FNU LNU, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50330.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed July 12, 2013.
Lane Dilg, Assistant U.S., Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth Newman, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
David John Arevalo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and six-month sentence for making a false statement in a passport application and use thereof, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Areva-lo'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 Arevalo 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.